IIIIMIIIIIIIIllllllllllllltllllllllll>IIIIIIIiltnilllUIIIIIIIIIUIIIIlllUlllUUUIIIIIllllUU)U>lllll!lll| 


iHiiiiMiiiiUHniiiiiiiiiiiuiimmHttiiiniiiiiiimmiMiMUHUiiiiuuimtwuMMmtim 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


THE  TRUTH 
ABOUT  SOCIALISM 


BY 

ALLAN  L.  BENSON 

Author  of  "The  Usurped  Power  o^f  the  Courts," 

"The  Growing  Grocery  Bill,"  "Socialism 

Made  Plain,"  etc. 


NEW  YORK 

B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

1913 


Copyright,  1912 

By  The  Pearson  Publishing  Co. 

Copyright,  1913 

By  Allan  L.  Benson 


First  printing,  February,  lOIU 

Second  printing,  March,  I!)i;t 

Tliird  printing.  May,  191.) 

Fourth  printing,  June,  1913 


.  •     ••,*•.••*..• •   .    -  •     •  •  •  • 

•  •  ••      '        ••     ••  >      *     .'     • •   •'•  *   ,*     <•  •*.    •    • 

•  •••    ••      '♦     ,••      .        "      .•        •     »•'••:•.••  ••     •     • 

....    . .  .  •  - • .     . 


•  -    • 


«■        .o.fc 


4 


h 
-3-ut 

CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I    To  THE  Disinherited i 

II  What  Socialism  Is  and  Why  It  Is  .     .     .       4 

e^     III  The   Virtuous   Grafters   and  Their   Grave 

o  Objections  to  Socialism 24 

.  .    IV  Why  Socialists  Preach  Discontent  ...     43 

V  How  THE  People  May  Acquire  the  Trusts    63 

VI  The  "  Private  Property  "  Bogey-Man    .      .     81 

^11  Socialism  the  Lone  Foe  of  War  ....     99 

VIII  Why    Socialists    Oppose    "  Radical    Politi- 
cians " 120 

^^     IX  The  Truth  about  the  Coal  Question     .     .139 

r     X    Deathbeds  and  Dividends 153 

>v\     XI  If  Not  Socialism  —  What?     .....   166 

*^  Appendix 183 


20v'88.'J 


The  Truth  About  Socialism 


CHAPTER  I 

TO    THE    DISINHERITED 

I  AM  going  to  put  a  new  heart  into  you.  I  am  go- 
ing to  put  your  shoulders  back  and  your  head  up. 
Behind  your  tongue  I  shall  put  words,  and  behind  your 
words  I  shall  put  power.  Your  dead  hopes  I  shall  drag 
back  from  the  grave  and  make  them  live.  Your  live 
fears  I  shall  put  into  the  grave  and  make  them  die.  I 
shall  do  all  of  these  things  and  more  by  becoming  your 
voice.  I  shall  say  what  you  have  always  thought,  but 
did  not  say.  And,  when  your  own  unspoken  words 
come  back  to  you,  they  will  come  back  like  rolling  thun- 
der. 

This  country  belongs  to  the  people  who  live  in  it. 

The  power  that  made  the  Rocky  Mountains  did  not 
so  make  them  that,  viewed  from  aloft,  they  spell 
"  Rockefeller." 

The  monogram  of  Morgan  is  nowhere  worked  out 
in  the  course  of  the  Hudson  River. 

Nothing  above  ground  or  below  ground  indicates  that 
this  country  was  made  for  anybody  in  particular. 

Everything  above  ground  and  below  ground  indicates 
that  it  was  made  for  everybody. 

Yet,  this  country,  as  it  stands  to-day,  is  not  for  every- 
body. Everybody  has  not  an  equal  opportunity  in  it. 
A  few  do  nothing  and  have  everything.  The  rest  do 
everything  and  have  nothing. 

A  great  many  gentlemen  arc  engaged  in  the  occupa- 

I 


2  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

tion  of  trying  to  make  these  wrongs  seem  right.  They 
write  pohtical  platforms  to  make  them  seem  right. 
They  make  pohtical  speeches  to  make  them  seem  right. 
They  go  to  Congress  to  make  them  seem  right.  Some 
go  even  to  the  White  House  to  make  them  seem  right. 
But  no  mere  words,  however  fine,  can  make  these  wrongs 
right. 

The  conditions  that  exist  in  this  country  to-day  are 
indefensible  and  intolerable.  This  should  be  a  happy 
country.  It  should  be  a  happy  country  because  it  con- 
tains an  abundance  of  every  element  that  is  required  to 
make  happiness.  The  pangs  of  hunger  should  never 
come  to  a  single  human  being,  because  we  already  pro- 
duce as  much  food  as  we  need,  and  with  more  intelli- 
gent effort  could  easily  produce  enough  to  supply  a 
population  ten  times  as  great. 

Yet,  instead  of  this  happy  land,  we  have  a  land  in 
which  the  task  of  making  a  living  is  constantly  becom- 
ing greater  and  more  uncertain.  Everything  seems  to 
be  tied  up  in  a  knot  that  is  becoming  tighter. 

You  do  not  know  what  is  the  matter. 

Your  neighbor  does  not  know  what  is  the  matter. 

Why  should  you  know  what  is  the  matter? 

You  never  listen  to  anybody  who  wants  you  to  find 
out.  You  listen  only  to  men  who  want  to  squeeze  you 
out.  Their  word  is  good  with  you  every  time.  You 
may  not  think  it  is  good,  but  it  is  good.  You  may  not 
take  advice  from  Mr.  Morgan,  but  you  take  advice  from 
Mr.  Morgan's  Presidents,  Congressmen,  writers,  and 
speakers.  You  may  not  take  advice  from  Mr.  Ryan, 
but  you  take  advice  from  the  men  whom  Mr.  Ryan  con- 
trols. If  you  should  go  straight  to  Mr.  Ryan  you 
would  get  the  same  advice.  What  these  men  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Morgan  and  Mr.  Ryan  say  to  them.     You  listen 


TO  THE  DISINHERITED  3 

as  they  speak.  You  vote  as  they  vote.  They  get  what 
they  want.  You  don't  get  what  you  want.  But  you 
stick  together.  You  seem  never  to  grow  tired.  You 
were  with  them  at  the  last  election.  Many  of  you  will 
be  with  them  at  the  next  election.  But  you  will  not  be 
with  them  for  a  while  after  the  next  election.  They 
will  go  to  their  fine  homes,  while  you  go  to  your  poor 
ones.  They  will  take  no  fear  with  them,  save  the  fear 
that  some  day  you  will  wake  up ;  that  some  day  you  will 
listen  to  men  who  talk  to  you  as  I  am  talking  to  you. 
But  you  will  take  the  fear  of  poverty  with  you,  and  it 
will  hang  like  a  pall  over  your  happiness. 

If  you  have  lost  your  hope  of  happiness,  get  it  back. 
This  can  be  a  happy  nation  in  your  time.  This  country 
is  for  you.  It  is  big.  It  is  rich.  It  is  all  you  need. 
But  you  will  have  to  take  it,  and  the  easiest  way  to  take 
it  is  with  ballots. 


CHAPTER  II 

WHAT    SOCIALISM    IS    AND    WHY   IT    IS 

THE  occupation  of  the  scarlet  woman  is  said  to' 
be  "  the  oldest  profession."  If  so,  the  robbery 
of  man  by  man  is  the  oldest  trade.  It  is  as  old  as  the 
human  race.  It  had  its  origin  in  the  difficulty  of  pro- 
ducing enough  of  the  material  necessities  of  life.  The 
earth  was  lean.  Man  was  weak.  Never  was  there 
enough  food  for  all.  Many  must  suffer.  Some  must 
starve. 

What  wonder  that  man  robbed  man?  Self-preserva- 
tion is  the  first  law  of  nature.  We  have  always  fought 
and  shall  always  fight  for  those  things  that  are  scarce 
and  without  which  we  should  die.  If  water  were 
scarce,  we  should  all  be  fighting  by  the  brookside.  If 
air  were  scarce,  we  should  all  be  straining  our  lungs  to 
take  in  as  much  as  we  could. 

But  what  wonder,  also,  that  the  robbed  should  resist 
those  who  robbed  them?  The  robbed,  too,  have  the  in- 
stinct of  self-preservation.  They,  too,  want  to  live. 
All  through  the  ages,  they  have  fought  for  the  right  to 
live  By  the  sheer  force  of  numbers,  they  have  driven 
their  exploiters  from  pillar  to  post.  Again  and  again, 
they  have  compelled  their  exploiters  to  abandon  one 
method  of  robbery,  only  to  see  them  take  up  another. 
And,  though  some  men  no  longer  own  other  men's  bod- 
ies, some  men  still  live  by  the  sweat  of  other  men's 
brows. 

The  question  is:     Must  this  go  on  forever?    Must 

4 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     5 

a  few  always  live  so  far  from  poverty  that  they  cannot 
see  it,  while  the  rest  live  so  close  ta  it  that  they  cannot 
see  anything  else?  Must  millions  of  women  work  in 
factories  at  men's  work,  while  millions  of  men  walk  the 
streets  unable  to  get  any  work?  Must  the  cry  of  child- 
labor  forever  sound  to  high  heaven  above  the  rumble  of 
the  mills  that  grind  their  bodies  into  dividends?  Must 
the  pinched  faces  of  underfed  children  always  make 
some  places  hideous? 

No  man  in  his  senses  will  say  that  this  situation  must 
always  exist.  Human  nature  revolts  at  it.  The  wrong 
of  it  rouses  the  feelings  even  before  it  touches  the  intel- 
lect. Something  within  us  tells  us  to  cry  out  and  to 
keep  crying  out  until  we  find  relief.  We  have  tried  al- 
most every  remedy  that  has  been  offered  to  us,  but  every 
remedy  we  have  tried  has  failed.  The  hungry  children 
are  still  with  us.  The  hungry  women  are  still  with  us. 
The  hungry  men  are  still  with  us.  Never  before  was  it 
so  hard  for  most  people  to  live.  Yet,  we  live  at  a  time 
when  men,  working  with  machinery,  could  make  enough 
of  everything  for  everybody. 

Your  radical  Republican  recognizes  these  facts  and 
says  something  is  the  matter.  Your  Democratic  radical 
recognizes  these  facts  and  says  something  is  the  matter. 
Your  Rooseveltian  Progressive  also  recognizes  these 
facts  and  says  something  is  the  matter.  But  if  you 
will  carefully  listen  to  these  gentlemen,  you  will  ob- 
serve that  none  of  them  believes  much  is  the  mat- 
ter. None  of  tliem  believes  much  need  be  done  to 
make  everything  right.  One  wants  to  loosen  the  tariff 
screw  a  little.  The  otliers  want  to  put  a  new  little 
wheel  in  the  anti-trust  machine. 

Socialists  differ  from  each  of  these  gentlemen.  So- 
cialists say  much  is  the  matter  with  this  country.     So- 


6     THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

cialists  say  much  is  the  matter  with  any  country,  most 
of  whose  people  are  in  want  or  in  fear  of  want,  and 
some  of  whose  people  are  where  want  never  comes  or 
can  come.  Some  such  conditions  might  have  been  tol- 
erated a  thousand  years  ago.  Socialists  will  not  toler- 
ate them  to-day.  They  say  the  time  for  poverty  has 
passed.  They  say  the  time  for  poverty  passed  when 
man  substituted  steam  and  electricity  for  his  muscles 
and  machinery  for  his  fingers. 

But  poverty  did  not  go  out  when  steam  and  electricity 
came  in.  On  the  contrary,  the  fear  of  want  became 
intensified.  Now,  nobody  who  has  not  capital  can  live 
unless  he  can  get  a  job.  In  the  days  that  preceded  the 
steam  engine,  nobody  had  to  look  for  a  job.  Every- 
body owned  his  own  job.  The  shoemaker  could  make 
shoes  for  his  neighbors.  The  weaver  could  weave  cloth. 
Each  could  work  at  his  trade,  without  anybody's  per- 
mission, because  the  tools  of  their  trades  were  few  and 
inexpensive.  Now,  neither  of  them  can  work  at  his 
trade,  because  the  tools  of  his  trade  have  become  nu- 
merous and  expensive.  The  tools  of  the  shoemaker's 
trade  are  in  the  great  factory  that  covers,  perhaps,  a 
dozen  acres.  The  tools  of  the  weaver's  trade  are  in  an- 
other enormous  factory.  Neither  the  shoemaker  nor 
the  weaver  can  ever  hope  to  own  the  tools  of  his  trade. 
Nor,  with  the  little  hand-tools  of  the  past  centuries,  can 
either  of  them  compete  with  the  modern  factories.  The 
shoe  trust,  with  steam,  electricity  and  machinery,  can 
make  a  pair  of  shoes  at  a  price  that  no  shoemaker,  work- 
ing by  hand,  could  touch. 

Thus  the  hand-workers  have  been  driven  to  knock  at 
the  doors  of  the  factories  that  rich  men  own  and  ask  for 
work.  If  the  rich  men  can  see  a  profit  in  letting  the 
poor  men  work,  the  poor  men  are  permitted  to  work. 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS    7 

If  the  rich  men  cannot  see  a  profit  in  letting  the  poor 
men  work,  then  the  poor  men  may  not  work.  Though 
there  be  the  greatest  need  for  shoes,  if  those  in  need 
have  no  money,  the  rich  men  lock  up  their  factories  and 
wave  the  workers  a: .ay.  The  workers  may  starve,  if 
they  like.  Their  wi<  -s  and  children  may  starve.  The 
workers  may  become  tramps,  criminals  or  maniacs ;  their 
wives  and  their  little  children  may  be  driven  into  the 
street  —  but  the  rich  men  who  closed  their  factories  be- 
cause they  could  see  no  profit  in  keeping  them  open  — 
these  rich  men  take  no  part  of  the  responsibility.  They 
talk  about  the  "  laws  of  trade,"  go  to  their  clubs  and 
have  a  little  smoke,  and,  perhaps,  the  next  week  give  a 
few  dollars  to  "  worthy  charity "  and  forget  all  about 
the  workers. 

Now,  the  Socialists  are  extremely  tired  of  all  this. 
Their  remedy  may  be  all  wrong,  but  they  are  tired  of 
all  this.  Put  the  accent  upon  the  tired  all  the  time. 
They  say  it  is  all  wrong.  Not  only  do  they  say  it  is 
all  wrong,  but  they  say  they  know  how  to  make  it  all 
right.  They  do  not  propose  to  do  any  small  job  of 
tinkering,  because  they  say  that  if  small  jobs  of  tinker- 
ing were  enough  to  cure  the  great  evil  of  poverty,  we 
should  have  cured  it  long  ago.  They  say  we  have  been 
tinkering  with  tariffs,  income  taxes  and  the  money  ques- 
tion for  a  hundred  years  without  reducing  either  want 
or  the  fear  of  want.  They  say  we  have  made  no  prog- 
ress, during  the  last  hundred  years,  in  reducing  want 
and  the  fear  of  want,  because  we  have  never  hit  the 
grafters  where  they  live.  By  this,  they  mean  that  we 
have  never  cut  the  tap  root  upon  which  robbery  grows. 
The  serfs  cut  off  the  tap  root  when  they  threw  off  chat- 
tel slavery,  but  another  tap  root  has  grown  and  wc  have 
not  yet  discovered  where  to  strike. 


8  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

The  Socialists  say  they  know  where  to  strike. 

"  Strike  at  the  macJiinery  of  the  country,"  they  say, 
"  by  having  the  people,  through  the  government,  own 
the  machinery  of  the  country." 

"  Cut  out  the  profits  of  the  private  owners"  they  say. 
"  Let  the  people  oivn  the  trusts  and  make  things  because 
they  zvant  the  things,  instead  of  because  somebody  else 
wants  a  profit,  and  there  will  never  again  be  in  this  coun- 
try either  zvant  or  the  fear  of  want." 

This  sounds  like  a  nice,  man-made  program,  cooked 
up  late  at  night  by  some  zealous  gentleman  intent  upon 
saving  his  country.  It  may  be  a  foolish  program,  but 
if  it  is,  it  is  not  that  kind  of  a  foolish  program.  It  is 
not  man-made,  any  more  than  Darwin's  theory  of  evo- 
lution is  man-made.  Darwin  observed  present  animal 
life  and  thereby  explained  the  past.  Socialists  observe 
past  and  present  industrial  life  and  thereby  forecast  the 
future.  Paradoxically,  then,  the  Socialist  remedy  is  not 
a  Socialist  remedy.  If  it  is  anything,  it  is  the  remedy 
that  evolution  is  bringing  to  us.  Socialists  see  what 
evolution  is  bringing  and  proclaim  it,  much  as  a  train- 
man announces  the  coming  of  a  train  that  he  already 
sees  rounding  a  curve. 

Let  me  tell  a  story  to  illustrate  this  point : 

Seventy  years  ago.  Socialist  writers  predicted  and 
accurately  described  the  trusts  as  they  exist  to-day. 
Nobody  paid  much  attention  to  the  predictions  or  the 
descriptions.  Nowhere  in  the  world  was  there  a  single 
trust.  Nowhere  in  the  world  was  any  one  thinking  of 
forming  one.  The  first  trust  was  not  formed  until  al- 
most forty  years  later. 

The  trusts  were  predicted  because  the  steam  engine 
had  been  invented  and  brought  with  it  machinery.  The 
invention  did  not  mean  much  to  most  people.     It  meant 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS    9 

everything  to  these  early  Socialists.  They  saw  its  sig- 
nificance. They  saw  that  it  meant  a  transformed  world. 
Never  again  would  the  world  be  as  it  had  always  been. 
Never  again  would  the  amount  of  wealth  that  man  could 
create  be  limited  by  his  weak  muscles.  Steam  and  ma- 
chinery had  come  to  do,  not  only  what  he  had  been 
doing,  but  what  he  had  never  dreamed  of  doing.  i 

The  only  lesson  that  the  rich  men  of  the  day  learned 
from  steam  was  that  it  meant  more  money  for  them. 
The  rich  men  of  the  day,  by  the  way,  were  in  need  of 
a  new  method  of  exploitation.  Serfdom  had  just  gone 
down  in  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  some  men  were  no 
longer  able  to  exploit  other  men  by  claiming  to  own 
the  other  men's  bodies.  Exploitation,  through  the  pri- 
vate ownership  of  land,  still  continued,  it  is  true,  but  a 
man  working  by  hand  cannot  be  much  exploited  be- 
cause he  cannot  make  much.  What  I  mean  by  this  is 
that  he  cannot  be  exploited  of  many  dollars.  Of  course, 
he  can  be  exploited  of  so  great  a  percentage  of  his 
product  that  he  is  left  starving,  but  the  man  who  ex- 
ploits him  will  not  be  much  richer.  That  is  why  there 
were  no  great  fortunes,  as  we  now  know  them,  in  the 
days  before  the  machinery  age.  Wealth  was  too  diffi- 
cult to  make. 

But,  to  return  to  our  story.  The  invention  of  the 
steam  engine  gave  the  rich  men  of  the  early  eighteenth 
century  the  opportunity  of  which  they  stood  much  in 
need.  Factories  cost  money.  The  workers  did  not 
have  any.  The  rich  men  did.  The  rich  men  built  fac- 
tories. That  is  to  say,  they  thought  they  were  only 
building  factories.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  wore 
taking  over,  from  the  hands  of  evolution,  the  poor  man's 
tools.  Never  again  were  working  men  to  own  the  tools 
of   their    trades.     Their   tools    had    gone    down    in   the 


lo  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

striigp^le  in  which  the  survivors  must  be  the  fittest.  For 
centuries,  the  world  had  starved  because  of  their  old 
hand-tools.  They  could  not,  for  a  moment,  exist  after 
steam  and  machinery  came.  It  was  right  that  the  hand- 
tools  should  go.  It  was  unfortunate  for  the  workers 
only  that  the  successors  of  hand-tools  were  too  expen- 
sive for  individual  ownership,  and  that  they  were  also 
unsuited  to  such  ownership.  No  man  can  run  a  whole 
shoe  factory,  even  if  he  owns  one.  Many  men  are  re- 
quired to  run  many  machines,  and  many  machines  are 
required  to  make  the  labor  of  men  most  productive. 

All  of  this,  the  early  Socialists  saw  or  reasoned  out. 
They  saw  the  rich  men  of  the  day  building  factories. 
They  saw  those  who  were  not  quite  so  rich  joining  to- 
gether to  build  factories.  Little  co-partnerships  were 
springing  up  all  over  the  world.  Everybody  competed 
with  everybody  else  in  his  line.  Manufactures  multi- 
plied, and  it  became  the  common  belief  that  "  competi- 
tion was  the  life  of  trade." 

Stick  a  pin  here.  The  roots  of  Socialism  go  down 
somewhere  near  this  point. 

The  early  Socialist  writers  who  predicted  the  trusts 
did  not  believe  competition  was  the  life  of  trade.  They 
believed  the  inevitable  tendency  of  competition  was  to 
kill  itself.     Their  reasoning  took  this  form: 

Manufacturers  engage  in  business,  not  be- 
cause they  want  to  supply  goods  to  the  public, 
but  because  they  want  to  make  profits  for  them- 
selves. 

Inasmuch  as  the  question  of  who  shall  make 
the  profits  depends  upon  who  shall  sell  the 
goods,  manufacturers  will  compete  with  each 
other  to  sell  goods. 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY.  IT  IS     ii 

Manufacturers  will  be  able  to  compete  and 
still  make  a  profit  so  long  as  the  demand  for 
goods  far  exceeds  the  supply. 

But  the  demand  for  goods  w-ill  not  always 
far  exceed  the  supply.  The  opportunity  to 
make  profits  will  tempt  other  capitalists  to 
create  manufacturing  enterprises.  The  market 
will  become  glutted  with  goods,  because  more 
will  have  been  produced  than  the  people  can 
pay  for. 

Competition  among  manufacturers  will  then 
become  so  fierce  that  profits  will  first  shrink 
and  eventually  disappear. 

Manufacturers,  to  regain  their  profits,  will 
then  cease  to  compete.  The  strongest  will  buy 
out  or  crush  the  weakest.  Monopolies  will  be 
formed,  primarily  to  end  competition  and  save 
the  competitors  from  themselves,  but,  having 
been  formed,  they  will  also  be  used  to  rob  the 
people. 

Mind  you  —  this  reasoning-  is  not  new.  It  is  seventy 
years  old.  It  sounds  new  only  because  it  has  so  recently 
come  true.  Nobody  whose  eyes  are  open  now  believes 
that  competition  is  the  life  of  trade.  The  phrase  has 
died  upon  the  lips  of  the  very  men  who  used  to  speak  it. 
The  late  Senator  Hanna  was  one  of  the  many  who  used 
to  believe  that  good  trade  could  not  be  where  compe- 
tition was  not.  But,  when  the  great  tru.st  movement 
of  1898  was  under  way,  Senator  Hanna  said:  "It  is 
not  a  question  of  whether  business  men  do  or  do  not 
believe  in  trusts.  It  is  a  question  only  of  whether  busi- 
ness men  want  to  be  killed  by  competition  or  saved  by 
cooperation." 


12  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

However,  tlie  existence  of  the  trusts  is  ample  verifica- 
tion of  the  Socialist  prophecy  that  they  would  come. 
And  the  trusts  came  in  the  way  that  the  early  Socialists 
said  they  would  come. 

We  may  now  proceed  to  consider  what  those  early 
Socialist  writers  thought  of  the  trusts  that  they  so  ac- 
curately described  before  they  came,  what  they  believed 
would  become  of  them  and  what  they  believed  would 
supplant  them. 

No  Socialist  was  ever  heard  finding  fault  with  a 
trust  simply  for  existing.  A  Socialist  would  as  soon 
find  fault  wnth  a  green  apple  because  it  had  been  pro- 
duced from  a  blossom.  In  fact,  Socialists  regard  the 
trusts  as  the  green  apples  upon  the  tree  of  industrial 
evolution.  But  they  would  no  more  destroy  these  in- 
dustrial green  apples  that  are  making  the  world  sick 
than  they  would  destroy  the  green  apples  that  make 
small  boys  sick.  They  pause,  first  because  they  are  evo- 
lutionists, not  only  in  biology,  but  in  everything;  sec- 
ond, because  they  recall  that  the  green  apples  that  make 
the  boy  sick  will,  if  left  to  ripen,  make  the  man  well. 
In  short,  Socialists  regard  trusts,  or  private  monopolies, 
as  a  necessary  stage  in  industrial  evolution ;  a  stage  that 
we  could  not  have  avoided ;  a  stage  that  in  many  respects, 
represents  a  great  advance  over  any  phase  of  civilization 
that  preceded  it,  yet  a  stage  at  which  we  cannot  stop' 
unless  civilization  stops.  Therefore,  Socialists  take  this 
position : 

It  is  flying  in  the  face  of  evolution  itself  to 
talk  about  destroying,  or  even  effectually  regu- 
lating the  trusts. 

Private  monopolies  cannot  he  destroyed  ex- 
cept  as   green    apples   can   he   destroyed — hy 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     13 

crushing  them  and  staying  the  evolutionary 
processes  that,  if  left  alone,  will  yield  good 
fruit. 

Private  monopolies  cannot  he  effectually 
regulated  because,  so  long  as  they  are  per- 
mitted to  exist,  they  will  regulate  the  govern- 
ment instead  of  permitting  the  government  to 
regulate  them.  They  will  regulate  the  govern- 
ment because  the  great  profits  at  stake  will 
give  them  the  incentive  to  do  so  and  the  enor- 
mous capital  at  their  command  will  give  them 
the  power  to  do  so. 

In  other  words,  Socialists  say  that  the  processes  of 
evolution  should  go  on.  What  do  they  mean  by  this? 
They  mean  that  the  good  elements  of  the  trust  princi- 
ple should  be  preserved  and  the  bad  elements  destroyed. 
What  are  the  good  elements?  The  economies  of  large, 
well-ordered  production,  and  the  avoidance  of  the  waste 
due  to  haphazard,  competitive  production.  And  the  bad 
elements?  The  powers  that  private  monopoly  gives, 
through  control  of  market  and  governmental  policies, 
to  rob  the  consumer. 

Socialists  contend  that  the  good  can  be  saved  and  the 
bad  destroyed  by  converting  the  private  monopolies  into 
public  monopolies  —  in  other  words,  by  letting  the 
government  own  the  trusts  and  the  people  own  the  gov- 
ernment. This  may  seem  like  what  the  foes  of  So- 
cialism would  call  a  "  patent  nostrum."  It  is  nothing  of 
the  kind.  It  is  no  more  a  patent  nostrum  than  the 
trusts  are  patent  nostrums.  Socialists  invented  neither 
private  monopolies  nor  public  monopolies.  Socialists 
did  not  kill  competition.  Competition  killed  itself.  So- 
cialists simply  were  able  to  foresee  that  too  much  com- 


14  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

petition  would  end  all  competition  and  thus  give  birtli 
to  private  monopoly. 

And,  having  seen  thus  far,  they  looked  a  little  further 
and  saw  that  private  monopoly  would  not  be  an  un- 
mixed blessing.  They  saw  that  under  it,  robbery  would 
be  practised  in  new,  strange  and  colossal  forms.  They 
knew  the  people  would  not  like  robbery  in  any  form. 
They  knev;^  they  would  cry  out  against  it  as  they  are 
crying  out  against  the  trusts  to-day.  And  they  believed 
that  after  having  tried  to  destroy  the  trusts  and  failed 
at  that ;  after  having  tried  to  regulate  the  trusts  and 
failed  at  that,  that  the  people  would  cease  trying  to 
buck  evolution,  and  get  for  themselves  the  benefits  of 
the  trusts  by  owning  them. 

This  may  be  an  absurd  idea,  but  in  part,  at  least,  it 
has  already  been  verified.  It  has  been  demonstrated 
that  private  monopoly  saves  the  enormous  sums  that 
were  spent  in  the  competitive  era  to  determine  whether 
this  man  or  that  man  should  get  the  profit  upon  the 
things  you  buy.  The  consumer  has  absolutely  no  in- 
terest in  the  identity  of  the  capitalist  who  exploits  him. 
But  when  capitalists  were  competing  for  trade,  the  con- 
sumer was  made  to  bear  the  whole  cost  of  fighting  for 
his  trade. 

Private  monopoly  has  largely  done  away  with  the  cost 
of  selling  trust  goods,  by  doing  away  with  the  individual 
competitors  who  were  once  struggling  to  put  their  goods 
upon  the  market.  Private  monopoly  has  also  reduced 
the  cost  of  production  by  introducing  the  innumerable 
economies  that  accompany  large  production. 

What  private  monopoly  has  not  done  and  will  never 
do  is  to  pass  along  these  savings  to  the  consumers.  The 
monopolists  have  passed  along  some  of  the  savings,  but 
not  many  of  them.     What  they  have  passed  along  bears 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     15 

but  a  small  proportion  to  what  they  have  kept.  That 
is  what  most  of  the  trouble  is  about  now.  The  people 
find  it  increasingly  difficult  to  live.  For  a  dozen  years, 
it  has  been  increasingly  difficult  to  live.  Persistent  and 
more  persistent  has  been  the  demand  that  something  be 
done  about  the  trusts. 

The  first  demand  was  that  the  trusts  be  destroyed. 
Now,  Mr.  Bryan  is  about  the  only  man  in  the  country 
to  whom  the  conviction  has  not  been  borne  homfe  that 
the  trusts  cannot  be  destroyed.  The  rest  of  the  people 
want  the  trusts  regulated,  and  the  worst  of  the  trust 
magnates  sent  to  jail.  Up  to  date,  not  a  single  trust 
has  been  regulated,  nor  a  single  trust  magnate  sent  to 
jail.  Officially,  of  course,  the  Standard  Oil  Company, 
the  American  Tobacco  Company  and  the  Coal  Trust 
have  been  cleansed  in  the  blue  waters  of  the  Supreme 
Court  laundry  and  hung  upon  the  line  as  white  as  snow. 
But  gentlemen  who  are  not  stone  blind  know  that  this  is 
not  so.  They  know  the  Standard  Oil  Company,  the 
American  Tobacco  Company  and  the  Coal  Trust  have 
merely  put  on  masks  and  gone  on  with  the  hold-up  busi- 
ness. Therefore,  the  Socialist  predictions  of  seventy 
years  ago  have  all  been  verified  up  to  and  including  the 
inability  of  any  government  either  to  destroy  or  regulate 
the  trusts. 

So  much  for  what  Socialists  believe  Socialism,  by 
reducing  the  prices  of  commodities  to  cost,  would  do 
for  the  people  as  consumers.  Socialists  believe  So- 
cialism would  do  even  more  for  the  people  as  workers. 
Behold  the  present  plight  of  the  workingman.  He  has 
a  right  to  live,  but  he  has  not  a  right  to  the  means  by 
which  he  can  live.  He  cannot  live  without  work,  yet, 
ever  he  must  seek  work  as  a  privilege  —  not  as  a  right. 
The  coming  of  the  age  of  machinery  has  made  it  im- 


i6         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

possible  to  work  without  machinery.  Yet  the  worker 
owns  no  macliincry  and  can  get  access  to  no  machinery 
except  upon  such  terms  as  he  may  be  able  to  make  with 
its  owners. 

Socialists  urge  the  people  to  consider  the  results  of 
this  unprecedented  situation.  First,  there  is  great  in- 
security of  employment.  No  one  knows  how  long  his 
job  is  destined  to  last.  It  may  not  last  another  day. 
A  great  variety  of  causes  exist,  any  one  of  which  may 
deprive  the  worker  of  his  opportunity  to  work.  Wall 
Street  gentlemen  may  put  such  a  crimp  in  the  financial 
situation  that  industry  cannot  go  on.  Business  may 
slow  down  because  more  is  being  produced  than  the 
markets  can  absorb.  A  greedy  employer  may  precipi- 
tate a  strike  by  trying  to  reduce  the  wages  of  his  em- 
ployees. Any  one  of  many  causes  may  without  notice 
step  in  between  the  worker  and  the  machinery  without 
which  he  cannot  work. 

But  worse  than  the  uncertainty  of  employment  is  the 
absolute  certainty  that  millions  of  men  must  always  be 
out  of  work.  Times  are  never  so  good  that  there  is 
work  for  everybody.  Most  persons  do  not  know  it,  but 
in  the  best  of  times  there  are  always  a  million  men 
out  of  work.  In  the  worst  of  times,  the  number  of  men 
out  of  work  sometimes  exceeds  5,000,000.  The  coun- 
try cries  for  the  things  they  might  produce.  There  is 
great  need  for  shoes,  flour,  cloth,  houses,  furniture,  and 
fuel.  These  millions  of  men,  if  they  could  get  in  touch 
with  machinery,  could  produce  enough  of  such  staples 
to  satisfy  the  public  demand.  If  they  could  but  work, 
their  earnings  would  vastly  increase  the  amount  of 
money  in  circulation  and  thus  increase  the  buying  power 
of  everybody.  But  they  cannot  work,  because  they  do 
not  own  the  machinery  without  which  they  cannot  work. 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     17 

and  the  men  who  own  it  will  not  let  it  be  used,  because 
they  cannot  see  any  profits  for  themselves  in  having  it 
used. 

Socialists  say  this  is  an  appalling  situation.  They 
are  amazed  that  the  nation  tolerates  it.  They  believe 
the  nation  would  not  tolerate  it  if  it  understood  it. 
Some  things  are  more  easily  understood  than  others.  If 
5,000,000  men  were  on  a  sinking  ship  within  swimming 
distance  of  the  Atlantic  shore  and  the  employing  class 
were  to  prevent  them  from  swimming  ashore  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  the  employing  class  had  no  use 
for  their  services  —  the  people  would  understand  that. 
Socialists  believe  the  people  will  soon  understand  the 
present  situation. 

Here  is  another  thing  that  Socialists  hope  the  people 
will  soon  understand.  The  policy  of  permitting  a  few 
men  to  use  the  machinery  with  which  all  other  men 
must  work  or  starve  compels  all  other  men  to  become 
competitors  for  its  use.  If  there  were  no  more  workers 
than  the  capitalists  must  have,  there  would  not  be  such 
competition.  But  there  must  always  be  more  workers 
than  the  capitalists  can  use.  The  fact  that  the  capitalist 
demands  a  profit  upon  the  worker's  labor  renders  the 
worker  incapable  of  buying  back  the  very  thing  he  has 
made.  Under  present  conditions,  trade  must,  therefore, 
always  be  smaller  than  the  natural  requirements  of  the 
people  for  goods.  And  since,  with  machinery,  each 
worker  can  produce  a  vast  volume  of  goods,  it  inevita- 
bly follows  that  only  a  part  of  the  workers  are  required 
to  make  all  of  the  goods  that  can  be  sold  at  a  profit. 
That  is  why  there  is  not  always  work  for  all. 

With  more  workers  than  there  are  jobs,  it  thus  comes 
about  that  the  workers  are  compelled  to  compete  among 
themselves  for  jobs.     Only  part  of  the  workers  can  be 


i8  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

employed  and  the  struggle  of  each  is  to  become  one  of 
that  part.  The  workers  who  are  out  of  employment  are 
always  willing  to  work,  if  they  can  get  no  more,  for  a 
wage  that  represents  only  the  cost  of  the  poorest  living 
upon  which  they  will  consent  to  exist.  It  therefore  fol- 
lows that  wages  are  always  based  upon  the  cost  of 
living.  If  the  cost  of  living  is  high,  wages  are  high.  If 
the  cost  of  living  is  low,  wages  are  low.  In  any  event, 
the  worker  has  nothing  left  after  he  has  paid  for  his 
living. 

Socialists  say  this  is  not  just.  They  can  understand 
the  capitalist  who  buys  labor  as  he  buys  pig-iron,  but 
they  say  labor  is  entitled  to  more  consideration  than  pig- 
iron.  The  price  of  labor,  they  declare,  should  be  gauged 
by  the  value  of  labor's  product,  instead  of  by  the  direness 
of  labor's  needs.  They  say  the  present  situation  gives 
to  the  men  w^ho  own  machinery  most  of  its  benefits  and 
to  the  many  who  operate  it  none  of  its  hopes.  Now,  as 
of  old,  the  average  worker  dare  hope  for  no  more  than 
enough  to  keep  him  alive.  Again  and  again  and  again 
the  census  reports  have  shown  that  the  bulk  of  the 
people  in  this  country  are  so  poor  that  they  do  not  own 
even  the  roofs  over  their  heads. 

The  purpose  of  Socialism  is  to  give  the  workers  all 
they  produce.  And,  when  Socialists  say  "workers " 
they  do  not  mean  only  those  who  wear  overalls  and 
;  carry  dinner  pails.  They  mean  everybody  who  does 
I  useful  labor.  Socialists  regard  the  general  superin- 
tendent of  a  railroad  as  quite  as  much  of  a  worker  as 
they  do  the  man  on  the  section.  But  tliey  do  not  regard 
the  owners  of  railway  stocks  and  bonds  as  workers. 
They  regard  them  as  parasites  who  are  living  off  the 
products  of  labor  by  owning  the  locomotives,  cars  and 
.other  equipment  with  which  the  workers  work.     And, 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     19 

since  the  ownership  of  machinery  is  the  club  with  which 
SociaHsts  say  capitaHsts  commit  their  robberies,  So- 
ciaHsts  also  declare  that  the  only  way  to  stop  the  rob- 
beries is  to  take  away  the  club.  It  would  do  no  good 
to  take  the  club  from  the  men  who  now  hold  it  and  give 
it  even  to  the  individual  workers,  because,  with  the 
principle  of  private  ownership  retained,  ownership  would 
soon  gravitate  into  a  few  hands  and  robbery  would  go 
on  as  ruthlessly  as  ever.  Socialists  believe  the  only 
remedy  is  to  destroy  the  club  by  vesting  the  ownership 
of  the  great  machinery  of  production  and  distribution 
in  the  people,  through  the  government. 

Such  is  the  gist  of  Socialism  —  public  ownership  of 
the  trusts,  combined  with  public  ownership  of  the  gov- 
ernment. Gentlemen  who  are  opposed  to  Socialism  — 
for  what  reasons  it  is  now  unnecessary  to  consider  — 
lose  no  opportunity  to  spread  the  belief  that  there  are 
more  kinds  of  Socialism  than  there  are  varieties  of  the 
celebrated  products  of  Mr.  Heinz.  This  is  not  so. 
There  are  more  than  30,000,000  Socialists  in  the  world. 
Not  one  of  them  would  refuse  to  write  across  this  chap- 
ter: "That  is  Socialism,"  and  sign  his  name  to  it. 
Every  Socialist  has  his  individual  conception  of  how  man- 
kind would  advance  if  poverty  were  eliminated,  but  all 
Socialists  agree  that  the  heart  and  soul  of  their  philos- 
ophy lies  in  the  public  ownership,  under  democratic  gov- 
ernment, of  the  means  of  life.  And,  as  compared  with 
this  belief,  all  other  beliefs  of  Socialism  are  minor  and 
inconsequential.  Public  ownership  is  the  rock  upon  which 
it  is  determined  to  stand  or  fall. 

Socialists  differ  only  with  regard  to  the  means  by 
which  public  ownership  may  be  brought  about.  A' 
handful  of  Socialists,  for  instance,  believe  that  in  order 
to  bring  it  about    it   is  necessary  to  oppose  the   labor 


20  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

unions.     All   other  Socialists  work  hand  in  hand  with 
the  labor  unions. 

Also,  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among-  So- 
cialists as  to  how  the  p^overnment  should  proceed  to 
obtain  ownership  of  the  industrial  trusts,  the  railroads, 
telegraph,  telephone  and  express  companies  and  so 
forth.  Some  Socialists  are  in  favor  of  confiscating 
them,  on  the  theory  that  the  people  have  a  right  to  resort 
to  such  drastic  action.  In  a  way,  they  have  excellent 
authority  for  their  position.  Read  what  Benjamin 
Franklin  said  about  property  at  the  convention  that  was 
called  in  1776  to  adopt  a  new  constitution  for  Pennsyl- 
vania : 

"  Suppose  one  of  our  Indian  nations  should  now  agree  to  form 
a  civil  society.  Each  individual  would  bring  into  the  stock  of 
the  society  little  more  property  than  his  gun  and  his  blanket,  for  at 
present  he  has  no  other.  We  know  that  when  one  of  them  has  at- 
tempted to  keep  a  few  swine  he  has  not  been  able  to  maintain  a 
property  in  them,  his  neighbors  thinking  they  have  a  right  to  kill 
and  eat  them  whenever  they  want  provisions,  it  being  one  of  their 
maxims  that  hunting  is  free  for  all.  The  accumulation  of  property 
in  such  a  society,  and  its  security  to  individuals  in  every  society, 
must  be  an  effect  of  the  protection  afforded  to  it  by  the  joint  strength 
of  the  society  in  the  execution  of  its  laws. 

"  Private  property  is,  therefore,  a  creature  of  society,  and  is  sub- 
ject to  the  calls  of  that  society  whenever  its  necessities  require  it, 
even  to  the  last  farthing." 

But  one  need  quote  only  the  law  of  self-preservation  to 
prove  that  if  any  people  shall  ever  become  convinced 
that  their  lives  depend  upon  the  confiscation  of  the  trusts 
that  such  confiscation  will  be  justified.  When  men 
reach  a  certain  stage  of  hunger  and  wretchedness  they 
pay  scant  attention  to  every  law  except  the  higher  law 
that  says  they  have  a  right  to  live. 

I  believe  that  most  vSocialists  twenty  years  ago,  were 
in  favor  of  confiscation.     The  trend  now  is  all  toward 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     21 

compensation.  Not  that  Socialists  have  changed  their 
minds  at  all  about  the  equities  of  the  matter.  They  have 
not.  But  they  are  coming  to  see  that  compensation  is 
the  easier  and  quicker  way.  Victor  Berger,  the  first  So- 
cialist congressman,  introduced  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives an  anti-trust  bill  in  which  he  proposed  that 
the  government  should  buy  all  of  the  trusts  that  control 
more  than  forty  per  cent,  of  the  business  in  their  re- 
spective lines,  and  pay  therefor  their  full  cash  values  — 
minus,  of  course,  wind,  water  and  all  forms  of  specula- 
tive inflation.  In  short  the  differences  in  the  Socialist 
party  upon  the  question  of  compensation  are  not  unlike 
the  differences  which  once  existed  with  regard  to  the 
best  means  by  which  the  negroes  might  be  emancipated. 
Years  before  the  Civil  War,  Henry  Clay  proposed  that 
the  government  should  buy  the  negroes  at  double  their 
market  price  and  set  them  free.  He  said  this  would  be 
the  cheapest  and  quickest  way  of  settling  the  troubles 
between  the  North  and  the  South.  The  slave  owners 
would  not  consent,  and,  eventually  Lincoln  freed  their 
slaves  without  paying  for  them. 

When  Socialists  speak  of  buying  the  trusts,  they  nat- 
urally invite  the  inquiry  as  to  where  they  expect  to  get 
the  money  to  pay  for  them.  They  expect  to  get  the 
money  out  of  the  profits  of  the  trusts.  That  is  the  way 
that  Representative  Berger  provided  in  his  bill.  It  is 
a  poor  trust  that  does  not  pay  dividends  upon  stock  and 
interest  upon  bonds  that  do  not  aggregate  at  least  ten 
per  cent,  of  the  capital  actually  invested.  Most  of  them 
pay  more,  and  some  of  the  express  companies  occasion- 
ally spring  a  fifty  or  a  100  per  cent,  dividend. 

Tlie  Socialist  proposal  is  that  the  government  pay  for 
the  trusts  with  two-per  cent,  bonds,  and  that  each  year, 
enough  money  be  put  into  a  sinking  fund  to  retire  the 


t 


22  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

bonds  in  not  more  than  fifty  years.  The  burden  of  pur- 
chasing the  trusts  would  thus  he  spread  over  a  httle  more 
than  two  generations,  but  Sociahsts  say  the  burden  would 
be  a  burden  only  in  name,  since  the  prices  of  trust  goods 
could  be  radically  reduced,  even  while  the  trusts  were 
being  paid  for,  and  upon  the  retirement  of  the  bonds,  all 
prices  could  be  reduced  to  cost.  ' 

Those  who  know  little  or  nothing  about  Socialism  be- 
lieve that  Socialists  also  differ  as  to  the  advisability  of 
using  violence  to  bring  about  Socialism.  Never  was 
there  a  greater  mistake.  Above  all  others,  the  Socialist 
party  is  the  party  of  peace.  When  Germany  and  Eng- 
land, in  191 1,  were  ready  to  fly  at  each  other's  throats, 
it  was  the  Socialist  party  of  Germany  that  assembled 
200,000  men  in  Berlin  one  Sunday  afternoon  and  de- 
clared that  if  there  were  a  war,  the  Socialists  of  Ger- 
many would  not  help  fight  it.  It  was  generally  ad- 
mitted, at  the  time,  that  the  attitude  of  the  German 
Socialists,  more  than  anything  else,  was  responsible  for 
the  avoidance  of  w^ar. 

Socialists  are  equally  pacific  when  considering  the  best 
means  by  which  Socialism  may  be  brought  about.  So- 
cialists are,  first,  last  and  all  the  time  in  favor  only  of 
political  action  and  trade-union  action.  Wherever  there 
is  a  free  ballot,  they  believe  in  using  it,  to  the  exclusion 
of  bombs  and  bullets.  Socialists  realize  that  they  can 
w'in  only  by  converting  a  majority  of  the  people  to  their 
belief.  That  is  why  they  begin  one  campaign  the  next 
morning  after  the  closing  of  another.  They  are  busy 
with  the  printing  press  and  their  tongues  all  the  while. 
For  them,  there  is  no  closed  season. 

Socialists  realize  that  Socialism  can  be  reared  only 
upon  understanding,  and  that  the  use  of  dynamite  would 
turn  the  minds  of  the  people  against  them  for  a  hundred 


WHAT  SOCIALISM  IS  AND  WHY  IT  IS     23 

years.  Any  Socialist  who  believes  otherwise  is  the  same 
sort  of  a  potential  criminal  that  can  be  found  in  any 
other  party  —  and  equally  as  rare.  The  Republican 
party  had  its  Guiteau  and  its  Czolgosz,  but  it  repudiated 
neither  of  them  more  quickly  than  the  Socialist  party 
would  repudiate  one  of  its  own  members  who  should 
commit  a  great  crime. 

Socialists,  as  a  party,  stand  for  violence  only  in  the 
same  way  that  Abraham  Lincoln  stood  for  it.  If  the 
Socialists  should  carry  a  national  election  in  this  coun- 
try, and,  the  capitalists,  refusing  to  yield,  should  turn 
the  regular  army  at  them,  the  Socialists  would  use  all 
the  violence  they  could  muster.  While  they  are  in  a 
minority,  they  are  obeying  the  laws  that  the  capitalists 
make,  but  when  the  Socialists  become  a  majority,  they 
will  insist,  even  with  bullets,  that  the  capitalists  obey  the 
laws  that  the  Socialists  make. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  AND  THEIR   GRAVE  OBJECTIONS 

TO    SOCIALISM 

IT  is  an  old  saying  that  the  tree  that  bears  the  best 
apples  has  the  most  clubs  under  it.  Enough  clubs 
arc  under  the  tree  of  Socialism  to  stock  a  wood-yard. 
Some  of  the  clubs  bear  the  imprints  of  honest  men. 
Some  do  not.  The  great  grafters  of  the  present  day 
are  the  most  persistent  foes  of  Socialism.  The  great 
grafters  say,  not  only  that  Socialism  is  anti-religious, 
but  that  it  would  destroy  the  family.  The  grafters  also 
say  that  Socialism  stands  for  free  love. 

It  may  be  amusing  to  hear  a  grafter  oppose  Socialism 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  against  religion.  It  may  be 
diverting  to  hear  gentlemen  with  Reno  reputations 
charge  that  Socialism  would  establish  free  love  and  thus 
destroy  the  family.  But  such  charges  cannot  be  dis- 
missed by  laughing  at  those  who  make  them.  Honest 
men  and  women  want  to  know  the  truth. 

The  truth  is  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the  charge  that 
Socialism  is  against  religion.  Socialism  is  purely  an 
economic  matter.  It  has  no  more  to  do  with  religion 
than  it  has  to  do  with  astronomy.  It  is  no  more  against 
religion  than  it  is  against  astronomy.  Men  of  all  re- 
ligious denominations  are  Socialists,  and  men  of  no 
religious  denomination  are  Socialists.  Nor  is  there  any 
reason  why  this  should  not  be  so.  The  very  pith  and 
marrow  of  Socialism  is  the  contention  that  the  people, 

through  the  government,  should  own  and  operate,   for 

24 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  2^ 

their  exclusive  benefit,  the  great  machinery  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution  that  is  now  owned  and  operated  by 
the  trusts.  Either  this  contention  is  sound  or  it  is  not. 
Whether  it  is  sound  or  not,  a  man's  reh'gious  behefs  can- 
not possibly  have  anything  to  do  with  what  he  thinks  of  it. 

But  while  Socialism  is  in  no  sense  anti-religious,  it  is 
in  one  sense  pro-religious.  So  good  an  authority  as  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  declares  that  "  the  ethics  of  So- 
cialism and  the  ethics  of  Christianity  are  identical."  One 
of  the  concerns  of  Christianity  is  to  establish  justice  upon 
earth.  The  only  concern  of  Socialism  is  to  establish  jus- 
tice upon  earth.  Socialism  seeks  to  establish  justice  by 
giving  each  human  being  an  equal  opportunity  to  labor, 
while  depriving  each  human  being  of  the  power  to  appro- 
priate any  part  of  the  product  of  another  human  being's 
labor.  If  the  Socialist  program  contains  a  word  of 
comfort  for  either  grafters  or  loafers,  neither  the  graft- 
ers nor  the  loafers  have  found  it. 

Nor  does  the  Socialist  program  contain  a  word  of 
comfort  for  the  Reno  gentlemen.  Socialists  beg  leave 
frankly  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  certain  wealthy  men  who 
profess  to  believe  that  Socialism  would  destroy  the  fam- 
ily by  bringing  about  free  love.  Socialists  say  the  best 
proof  that  these  men  believe  nothing  of  the  kind  is  that 
they  do  not  make  application  to  join  the  Socialist  party. 
The  wives  of  some  of  them  certainly  make  enough  appli- 
cations for  divorce. 

Addressing  themselves  to  the  members  of  the  capitalist 
class,  Socialists  therefore  speak  as  follows: 

"If  the  preservation  of  the  family  depends  upon  you, 
God  help  the  family.  If  the  preservation  of  womanly 
women  depends  upon  you,  God  help  the  women.  You 
arc  not  all  bad,  but  you  are  all  doing  bad.  Some  of  you 
are  doing  bad  without  knowing  it;  some  of  you  are  doing 


26         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

bad  tliongli  knowing^  it.  But,  wlictlier  you  know  it  or 
not,  all  of  you  are  doing  bad  because  your  capitalist  sys- 
tem is  bad.  Your  system  makes  those  of  you  who  would 
do  good  do  bad.  It  makes  you  fatten  upon  the  labor  of 
children,  because  your  competitors  are  fattening  upon  the 
labor  of  children.  It  makes  you  fatten  upon  the  labor  of 
women,  because  your  competitors  are  fattening  upon  the 
labor  of  women.  It  makes  you  fatten  upon  the  labor  of 
men  because  your  competitors  are  fattening  upon  the 
labor  of  men.  It  makes  you  keep  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren poor,  because  in  no  other  way  could  you  become 
rich. 

"  And  you  are  the  ones  who  are  so  fearful  lest  Social- 
ism shall  destroy  the  home.  Why  do  you  not  worry  a 
little  lest  the  poverty  caused  by  capitalism  shall  destroy 
the  home?  Why  are  you  so  slightly  stirred  by  the  spec- 
tacle of  little  children  torn  from  their  firesides  and  their 
schools  to  work  for  starvation  wages  in  factories  and  de- 
partment stores?  Why  are  you  so  well  able  to  control 
your  grief  when  the  census  reports  tell  you  that  more  than 
5,000,000  women  and  girls  have  been  compelled  to  become 
wage-earners  because  their  husbands  and  fathers  receive 
so  little  wages  that  they  cannot  support  their  families? 
Why  are  you  so  well  able  to  bear  up  when  the  white- 
slave dealer  gets  the  little  girl  from  the  department  store? 

"  None  of  these  facts,  nor  all  of  these  facts  seem  to  sug- 
gest to  you  wealthy  gentlemen  who  are  opposing  Social- 
ism that  the  conditions  under  which  you  have  become  rich 
are  doing  anything  to  disrupt  the  family  or  to  bring  about 
free  love.  But  you  profess  to  be  stunned  to  a  stare  when 
Socialists  present  a  program  that  is  devoted  to  the  single 
purpose  of  preventing  you,  who  do  no  useful  labor,  from 
robbing  those  who  do  it  all.  If  you  have  other  grounds 
for  opposing  Socialism,  state  them.     But  in  the  name  of 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  ^y 

common  decency,  don't  come  forward  as  the  protectors  of 
women  and  children.     Your  hands  are  not  clean." 

Socialists  contend  that  Socialism  would  do  more  to 
purify,  glorify  and  vivify  the  family  than  capitalism  has 
ever  done  or  can  do.     Their  reasoning  takes  this  form : 

Unless  poverty  is  good  for  the  family,  capitalism  is  not 
good  for  the  family,  because  capitalism  means  poverty 
or  the  fear  of  poverty  for  all  hut  a  few  and  can  never 
mean  anything  else.  Capitalism  can  never  mean  any- 
thing else  because  capitalism  is  essentially  parasitical  in 
its  nature.  It  lives  and  can  live  only  by  preying  upon 
the  working  class. 

If  plenty  for  everybody,  zvithout  too  much  or  too  little 
for  anybody  will  purify,  glorify  and  vivify  the  family, 
Socialism  will  purify,  glorify  and  vivify  it.  Socialism 
will  place  all  of  the  great  machinery  of  modern  production 
in  the  hands  of  the  people,  to  be  used  fully  and  freely  for 
nobody's  advantage  but  their  own. 

Of  course,  the  family  cannot  be  improved  without 
changing  it.  Upon  this  obvious  fact  is  based  the  whole 
capitalist  attack  upon  Socialism  as  a  destroyer  of  the 
home.  Socialists  believe  that  freedom  from  poverty 
would  have  a  profound  effect  upon  domestic  relationships. 
And  Socialist  writers  have  tried  to  picture  the  world  as  it 
will  be  when  all  of  the  hot  hoops  of  want  have  been  re- 
moved from  the  compact  little  group  that  is  called  the 
family. 

They  have  pictured  woman  standing  firmly  upon  her 
feet,  with  the  ballot  in  one  hand  and  the  power  under  the 
law  to  live  from  her  labor  with  comfort  and  self-respect, 
cither  inside  or  outside  of  her  home.  But  no  Socialist 
has  ever  pictured  a  world  in  which  woman  would  be  com- 
pelled to  work  outside  her  home  if  she  did  not  want  to. 
Such  a  picture  is  reserved  for  capitalism  in  the  present 


28  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

day.  Socialists  merely  contend  that  Socialism  would 
make  women  economically  independent,  by  guaranteeing' 
to  them  the  full  value  of  their  labor.  No  woman  would 
be  compelled  to  marry  to  get  a  home.  No  woman  who 
had  a  home  would  be  compelled  by  poverty  to  stay  in  it 
if  she  were  badly  treated.  For  the  sake  of  her  children, 
she  might  do  so  if  she  wished,  but  she  could  not  be  com- 
pelled to  do  so.  She  would  simply  be  free  to  act  as  her 
judgment  might  dictate  —  to  profit  from  a  wise  choice 
or  to  suffer  from  an  unwise  one. 

Briefly,  such  is  the  Socialist  picture  of  the  Socialist 
world  for  women.  No  Socialist  contends  that  it  is  a 
picture  of  a  perfect  world.  A  perfect  world  could  con- 
tain neither  fools,  hotheads,  nor  vicious  persons.  The 
hard  conditions  of  the  present  world,  and  the  harder 
conditions  of  those  long  past  have  created  too  many 
fools,  hotheads  and  vicious  persons  to  justify  the  hope 
that  all  such  persons  can  quickly  be  made  wise,  cool  and 
good.  Socialists,  with  all  their  optimism,  are  not  so  op- 
timistic as  that.  They  have  absolutely  no  program,  pat- 
ented or  otherwise,  for  making  people  good. 

Their  only  contention  is  that  they  have  a  program 
under  which  people  can  be  good  if  they  want  to.  They 
know,  only  too  well,  that  with  the  coming  of  Socialism, 
everybody  will  not  suddenly  want  to  be  good.  They  ex- 
pect to  have  to  deal  with  the  bad  man  and  the  bad  woman. 
But  they  do  not  expect  to  have  to  deal  with  so  many 
bad  men  and  bad  women  as  we  now  have  to  deal  with. 
They  do  not  expect  to  have  to  deal  with  any  men  or 
women  who  have  been  made  bad  by  poverty  or  the  fear 
of  poverty.  They  do  not  expect  to  have  to  deal  with 
women  who  have  been  forced  into  prostitution  because 
there  seemed  to  be  no  other  way  to  keep  soul  and  body 
together.     Socialists  say  that  if  there  are  any  prostitutes 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  29 

under  Socialism  they  will  be  women  who  deliberately 
choose  prostitution  as  a  vocation.  Perhaps  women,  bet- 
ter than  men,  can  judge  how  many  such  women  there  are 
likely  to  be. 

It  is  this  picture  of  economically  independent  woman- 
hood that  is  hailed  by  the  wealthy  detractors  of  Socialism 
as  the  sign  that  the  Socialists  plan  to  destroy  the  home 
and  supplant  it  with  free  love.  Socialists  say  that  such 
conclusions  can  be  based  only  upon  these  assumptions : 

That  nothing  but  poverty  keeps  women  from  being 
"  free-lovers." 

That  if  women  were  given  the  power  to  support  them- 
selves decently  and  comfortably  outside  of  the  home, 
they  would  at  once  desert  their  children,  their  husbands 
and  "  destroy  the  family." 

Socialists  believe  women  can  safely  be  trusted  with 
enough  money  to  live  on.  Yet  the  word  "  trust,"  as  here 
used,  is  not  quite  the  word.  Socialists  do  not  believe  it 
is  within  their  province  either  to  trust  or  to  distrust 
women.  Socialists  believe  economic  independence  is  a 
right  that  women  should  demand  and  get,  rather  than  a 
privilege  tliat  man  should  grant  or  deny,  as  he  may  see 
fit.  If  women  do  well  with  economic  independence,  well 
and  good.  If  they  do  ill  with  it,  still  well  and  good.  If 
they  have  not  yet  learned  to  use  economic  independence, 
they  cannot  begin  learning  too  quickly,  nor  can  they  learn 
except  by  trying  to  use  it. 

In  any  event.  Socialists  do  not  claim  the  right  of 
guardianship  over  women.  They  do  not  believe  any 
human  being,  regardless  of  sex,  has  a  right  to  coerce 
another  when  that  other  is  not  invading  the  rights  of 
some  other.  They  believe  that  women  to-day  are  being 
coerced.  Coerced  by  poverty.  Coerced  by  fear  of  pov- 
erty.    Coerced  by  men   who  presume   upon   their  own 


30         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

economic  independence  and  the  economic  dependence  of 
women.  They  cite,  as  proof  of  their  behefs,  the  grow- 
ing number  of  divorces,  together  with  the  fact  that 
women  are  the  apphcants  for  most  of  the  divorces. 

And,  the  astounding  circumstance  about  all  of  this  is 
that  because  Socialists  hold  these  views,  they  are  de- 
nounced by  rich  grafters  and  their  retainers  as  "  destroy- 
ers of  the  family,"  and  "  free-lovers." 

The  Socialists  have  said  no  more  than  Herbert 
Spencer  said  about  the  folly  of  trying  to  promote  happi- 
ness with  coercion.  They  say  that  weakness  pitted 
against  strength  and  dependence  against  independence 
invite  coercion — no  more  in  a  family  of  nations  than  in  a 
family  of  individuals;  that  a  woman  whose  economic  de- 
pendence prevents  her  from  doing  what  all  of  her  in- 
stincts call  upon  her  to  do  is  coerced.  Here  is  what 
Herbert  Spencer  says  in  Social  Statics  (p.  76)  : 

"  Command  is  a  blight  to  the  affections.  Whatsoever  of  beauty  — 
whatsoever  of  poetry  there  is  in  the  passion  that  unites  the  sexes, 
withers  up  and  dies  in  the  cold  atmosphere  of  authority.  Native 
as  they  are  to  such  widely-separated  regions  of  our  nature,  Love 
and  Coercion  cannot  possibly  flourish  together.  Love  is  sympa- 
thetic ;  Coercion  is  callous.  Love  is  gentle ;  Coercion  is  harsh.  Love 
is  self-sacrificing;  Coercion  is  selfish.  How  then  can  they  co-exist? 
It  is  the  property  of  the  first  to  attract,  while  it  is  that  of  the  last 
to  repel ;  and,  conflicting  as  they  do,  it  is  the  constant  tendency  of 
each  to  destroy  the  other.  Let  whoever  thinks  the  two  compatible 
imagine  himself  acting  the  master  over  his  betrothed.  Docs  he  be- 
lieve that  he  could  do  this  without  any  injury  to  the  subsisting  re- 
lationship? Does  he  not  know  rather  that  a  bad  effect  would  be 
produced  upon  the  feelings  of  both  by  the  assumption  of  such  an 
attitude?  And,  confessing  this  as  he  must,  is  he  superstitious  enough 
to  suppose  that  the  going  through  of  a  form  of  word  will  render 
harmless  that  use  of  command  which  was  previously  hurtful  ?  " 

Nobody  ever  called  Spencer  a  "  destroyer  of  the 
home,"  or  a  "free-lover"  for  that.  Yet,  if  Spencer 
meant   anything,   he   meant   that  coercion   is   primarily 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  31 

wrong  because  it  deprives  the  incHvidnal  of  the  riglit  to 
be  guided  by  his  own  judgment.  Sociah'sts  contend  that 
women  have  a  right  to  be  guided  by  their  own  judgment, 
even  if  tliey  make  mistakes.  Men  do  so.  Women  rebel 
against  the  denial  of  their  equal  riglit.  They  rebel 
against  the  coercion  that  is  worked  against  them  by  their 
inability  to  earn  decent,  comfortable  livings  outside  of 
their  homes.  Socialists  say  the  family  can  never  be 
what  it  might  be  or  what  it  should  be  so  long  as  this  war- 
fare continues.  Tiiey  say  that  since  the  weak  never 
coerce  the  strong,  there  should  be  no  economically  weak 
members  of  the  community.  Men  and  women  should 
both  be  economically  independent.  Each  is  likely  to 
treat  the  other  better  if  they  are  so. 

Francis  G.  Peabody,  Professor  of  Christian  Morals  at 
Harvard,  has  been  as  fortunate  as  Spencer  in  escaping 
the  charge  of  being  a  "  destroyer  of  the  family  "  and 
a  "  free-lover."  The  professor  is  quoted  in  the  press  as 
follows : 

"  One  thing  is  certain,  the  family  is  rapidly  becoming  disorganized 
and  disintegrated.  .  .  Divorces  are  being  granted  at  an  ever- 
increasing  rate.  It  may  be  computed  that  if  the  present  ratio  of 
increase  in  population  and  in  separation  is  maintained,  the  number 
of  separations  of  marriage  by  death  would  at  the  end  of  the  twen-> 
tieth  century  be  less  than  the  number  of  separations  by  di- 
vorce.    .     .     . 

"  Owing  to  industrial  life,  the  importance  of  the  family  is  already 
enormously  lessened.  Once  every  form  of  industry  went  on  within 
the  family  circle,  but  as  the  methods  of  the  great  industry  arc  sub- 
stituted for  work  done  in  the  home,  the  economic  usefulness  of  the 
family  is  practically  outgrown." 

Then,  painting  a  picture  of  the  world  to  come,  as  he 
sees  it,  the  professor  said: 

"  Thus  with  the  coming  of  the  social  state,  family  unity  will  be 
for  a  higher  end.    The  wife,  being  no  longer  doomed  to  household 


32  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

driulgcry,  will  liavc  tlic  prcnter  bicssinp  of  economic  cr|iia1ity.  Chil- 
dren will  be  cared  for  by  the  comnuniity  nnder  healllifnl  and  uni- 
form coiulitions,  and  we  shall  arrive  at  what  has  been  called  the 
happy  time  when  continuity  of  society  no  longer  depends  upon  the 
private  nursery." 

But  what  Professor  Pcabody  has  said,  or  what  Social- 
ists have  said  with  regard  to  the  next  step  in  the  evohi- 
tion  of  the  family  is  a  httle  beside  the  point,  and  is  men- 
tioned so  at  length  only  because  the  detractors  of  Social- 
ism make  so  much  of  it.  The  point  is:  Ought  the  world 
if  it  can,  to  get  rid  of  poverty,  and  will  Socialism  do  it? 
If  Socialism  will  rid  the  world  of  poverty,  ought  we  to 
retain  poverty  to  keep  women  good?  Who  knows  that 
economic  independence  would  make  women  bad?  The 
grafters  intimate  that  they  know.  But  who  believes  the 
grafters?  The  grafters  say  the  present  status  of  the 
family  is  so  good  that  we  should  be  content  to  remain 
poor  in  order  to  preserve  it.  Professor  Peabody  says 
the  present  status  of  the  family  is  so  bad  that  it  is  falling 
to  pieces.  The  professor  has  proof  of  his  statement  in 
every  divorce  court.  The  grafters  have  proof  of  their 
statement  in  no  court,  nor  anywhere  else. 

Besides,  the  testimony  of  the  grafters  is  properly  sub- 
ject to  suspicion.  If  Socialism  would  remove  poverty  it 
would  also  remove  the  grafters.  If  Socialism  would 
not  remove  poverty  or  the  grafters,  but  would 
bring  about  free  love,  do  you  believe  the  grafters 
would  oppose  it?  Is  it  not  more  likely  that  the 
grafters  believe  Socialism  would  remove  both  poverty 
and  themselves  and  that  they  are  trying  to  throw 
a  scare  into  the  people  by  howling  about  the 
threatened  destruction  of  the  family?  If  not,  why  do 
not  the  grafters  themselves  do  something  to  stop  their 
own  destruction  of  the  family?  A  $ioo  bill  will  make 
more  happiness  in  a  home  than  a  sermon  against  Social- 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  33 

ism.  Why  don't  they  give  up  their  dividends  and  let 
the  workers  have  what  they  produce?  Why  don't  they 
drum  Professor  Peabody  out  of  Harvard?  H  the  So- 
ciaHsts  are  free-lovers,  Professor  Peabody  is  a  free- 
lover.  Why  don't  they  put  him  out?  Is  it  because  he 
does  not  also  advocatQ  Socialism? 

"  Ah,"  say  the  grafters,  "  but  the  lives  of  Socialists  do 
not  bear  out  their  protestations  of  devotion  to  the  family. 
Look  at  the  *  affinities  '  that  some  of  them  have  had." 

"  Quite  true,"  say  the  Socialists,  "  but  one  affinity  does 
not  make  a  fire,  nor  do  two  make  a  forest.  What  if  one 
or  two  Socialists  of  more  or  less  prominence  have  been 
divorced?  Are  affinities  and  divorces  unknown  among 
Democrats  and  Republicans?  Is  the  percentage  of  di- 
vorces greater  in  Socialist  families  than  it  is  in  Dem- 
ocratic or  Republican  families?  Where  is  your  proof? 
Wiiat  have  you  got  on  Debs?  What  have  you  got  on 
Berger  ?  What  have  you  got  on  Seidel,  the  former  So- 
cialist ]\Iayor  of  Milwaukee  ?  These  men  are  in  the  lime- 
light. If  they  should  make  a  mismove,  you  would 
blazon  it.     What  do  you  know  against  them  ?  " 

The  foregoing  pretty  well  sums  up  the  situation,  so  far 
as  the  free-love  and  destroying-the-family  charges  are 
concerned.  There  is  nothing  in  them.  Socialists  are 
trying  to  eradicate  poverty  now.  They  have  no  other 
immediate  concern.  If  the  eradication  of  poverty  should 
send  the  world  to  hell,  the  Socialists,  if  they  can,  will 
send  the  world  to  hell.  They  do  not  believe  anything 
that  can  be  kept  only  with  poverty  is  worth  keeping. 
Tiieir  observation  has  taught  them  that  poverty  is  always 
and  everywhere  a  curse.  They  believe  no  other  curse  is 
nearly  so  great  except  the  curse  of  excessive  riches. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  objections  to  Socialism  that  are  both 
pertinent  and  honest.     It  is  the  common  belief  of  those 


34  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

\vlio  do  not  understand  Socialism  that,  under  a  Socialist 
form  of  government,  the  government  would  do  every- 
thing and  tlie  people  could  therefore  do  nothing;  that 
"  everybody  would  be  held  down  to  a  dead  level,"  and 
that  as  a  consequence  of  the  individual's  inability  to  rise, 
nobody  would  have  an  incentive  to  work. 

Here  are  several  kindred  objections  rolled  into  one. 
Let  us  pick  them  to  pieces  and  see  what  is  in  them. 

Let  it  be  conceded  that  under  Socialism  the  government 
would  own  and  operate  all  of  the  great  industries.  What 
of  it  ?  The  people  would  do  precisely  what  they  are  do- 
ing now,  except  that  they  would  do  it  through  the  gov- 
ernment for  themselves,  instead  of  through  capitalists 
for  themselves  and  the  capitalists.  The  people  are  now 
engaged  in  useful  labor.  A  small  body  of  parasites  are 
appropriating  much  that  the  people  produce.  Under 
Socialism,  the  parasites  will  have  to  go  to  work.  The 
people  will  simply  continue  to  work,  though  under  better 
conditions  and  for  a  greater  return  than  they  now  re- 
ceive. 

Now,  let  us  see  just  what  is  meant  by  "  keeping  every- 
body upon  a  dead  level."  As  the  world  stands  to-day, 
people  differ  chiefly  as  to  wealth  and  to  intellect.  If  one 
person  is  not  on  a  "  dead  level  "  with  another  it  is  because 
he  is  more  intelligent  or  more  stupid  than  that  other,  or 
because  he  is  richer  or  poorer.  Nobody,  of  course,  be- 
lieves that  Socialism  or  anything  else  could  put  Edison 
on  a  dead  level  with  the  boss  of  Tammany  Hall.  If  So- 
cialism is  to  establish  a  dead  level,  it  must  therefore  be 
by  establishing  equality  as  to  wealth. 

Capitalism  has  pretty  nearly  done  that  already.  The 
great  bulk  of  the  world  is  poor,  living  from  hand  to 
mouth,  worrying  about  the  increased  cost  of  living,  and 
going  to  the  grave  as  empty-handed  as  when  it  came  into 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  35 

tlie  world.  Only  a  few  have  any  money,  beyond  their 
immediate  needs,  and  as  a  rule  that  few  is  composed  of 
men  who  perform  no  useful  labor.  Here  and  there  is  a 
man  who  combines  a  little  useful  labor  with  a  great  deal 
of  cogitation  as  to  how  he  can  appropriate  something 
that  somebody  else  has  produced.  He  may  have  enough 
to  cause  him  to  mortgage  his  house  to  buy  an  automobile, 
and  to  make  a  little  pretence  of  affluence.  But  financially 
he  is  a  faker  and  he  knows  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
men  who  are  not  financial  fakers  are  not  workers.  That 
is  to  say,  either  they  do  no  work  that  is  useful  to  society, 
or  the  work  they  do  that  is  useful  justifies  but  a  small 
part  of  their  incomes. 

To  illustrate:  The  owner  of  a  great  industry  devotes 
his  time  to  the  management  of  that  industry.  So  far  as 
his  managerial  activities  pertain  to  the  production  and 
distribution  of  his  product,  they  are  socially  useful.  So 
far  as  they  pertain  to  obtaining  a  profit  for  himself  upon 
that  product  they  are  not  socially  useful.  The  value  o£ 
the  socially  useful  part  of  his  activities  may  be  approxi- 
mately measured  by  what  he  would  pay  another  man  for 
managing  the  manufacturing  and  distributing  end  of  his 
business.  The  extent  to  which  he  is  a  parasite  upon  the 
community  may  be  approximately  measured  by  the  dif- 
ference between  his  net  income  from  the  industry  and  the 
sum  he  would  pay  another  man  to  manage  the  manufac- 
turing and  distributing  end  of  his  business.  A  hired 
manager  might  receive  $5,000  a  year.  The  capitalist 
proprietor  may  receive  $50,000  a  year  or  he  may  receive 
nothing  —  he  is  in  a  gambler's  game  and  must  take  a 
gambler's  chances.  If  he  receives  $50,000  a  year 
$45,000  of  it  is  because  he  owns  the  machinery.  If  he 
did  not  own  the  machinery,  he  himself  would  be  com- 
pelled to  hire  out  as  a  manager  at  $5,000  a  year.     In 


36         THE  TRUTH  Ar.OUT  SOCIALISM 

other  words,  $45,000  a  year  is  the  price  that  the  workers 
pay  the  capitalist  for  the  privilege  of  working  with  his 
machinery.  Socialists  therefore  contend  that  we  are 
already  on  a  dead  level  of  wealth,  except  as  to  the  fact 
that  we  have  permitted  a  few  who  do  little  or  no  useful 
labor  to  rise  above  those  who  do  nothing  else. 

Socialists,  however,  are  not  opposed  in  principle  to  the 
economic  dead  level,  and  they  do  not  believe  anybody  else 
is.  If  it  were  desirable  that  each  human  being  should 
have  a  billion  dollars,  and,  by  pressing  a  button,  each 
human  being  could  have  a  billion  dollars,  Socialists  do 
not  believe  there  would  be  an  extended  Alphonse  and 
Gaston  performance  over  the  ceremony  of  pressing  the 
button.  Socialists  are  opposed  only  to  a  dead  level  that 
is  so  nearly  level  with  the  hunger  line.  They  want  to 
raise  the  level  to  the  point  where  it  will  comfort,  not 
alone  the  stomach,  but  the  heart  and  the  brain. 

Now,  mind  you.  Socialists  have  no  patented  wage- 
scales  that  they  intend  to  force  upon  the  people.  If 
Socialism  stands  for  anything,  it  stands  for  the  expres- 
sion of  popular  will,  and  therefore  it  will  be  for  the 
people  to  say,  when  Socialism  comes,  whether  the  man- 
ager of  a  railway  system  shall  receive  greater  compensa- 
tion than  a  train  conductor  on  that  system.  I  do  not 
fear  contradiction  when  I  say  almost  every  Socialist  be- 
lieves extraordinary  ability  should  be  rewarded  with 
extraordinary  compensation  —  not  $10,000  a  month  for 
the  manager  of  a  railway  system  that  pays  its  conductors 
$100  a  month,  but  enough  more  than  the  conductor  to 
show  that  the  manager's  services  are  appreciated  at 
their  worth.  Socialists  would  also  give  garbage  men 
and  sewer  diggers  extraordinary  wages,  on  the  theory 
that  their  work  is  vitally  necessary  to  everybody  else  and 
extremely  disagreeable  to  themselves. 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  37 

But  to  satisfy  those  who  want  the  dead  level  objection 
analyzed  to  the  bone,  suppose  everybody  were  to  receive 
equal  compensation?  Should  we  not  have  less  injustice 
in  the  world  than  we  have  now?  Should  we  have  any 
suffering  from  hunger  and  cold?  Should  we  have  so 
many  crimes  due  to  poverty?  Should  we  have  any 
women  forced  into  prostitution  by  poverty?  Should  we 
have  a  single  human  being  upon  the  face  of  the  earth 
haunted  by  the  constant  fear  that  he  could  not  get  work 
and  could  not  get  food? 

We  have  all  of  these  evils  now.  Are  they  worth  think- 
ing about?  Are  they  seri  jus  enough  to  justify  us  in  try- 
ing to  be  rid  of  them?  Granted,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  we  cannot  get  rid  of  them  without  doing  an 
injustice  to  the  railroad  manager  who  would  be  paid  no 
more  than  a  conductor  —  is  it  not  better  to  do  injustice 
to  an  occasional  person  who  would  still  be  treated  as  well 
as  any  of  the  others,  than  to  compel  all  the  others  to 
endure  present  conditions?  If  not,  the  "good  of  the 
greatest  num.ber  "  is  a  fallacy,  and  majority  rule  is  a 
crime. 

But  would  anyone  question  either  the  right  or  the  ex- 
pediency of  such  action  if  the  situation  were  reversed? 
Suppose  that  the  present  system  under  which  a  few  men 
own  almost  everything  had  made  almost  everybody  rich. 
Suppose  the  few  who  were  not  rich  —  corresponding  in 
numbers  to  the  present  capitalist  class  —  were  to  de- 
mand that  the  rules  of  the  game  be  so  changed  that  they 
could  be  made  rich  by  making  everyone  else  poor.  Let 
us  suppose,  even,  that  the  few  were  to  say  that  the 
present  system,  while  it  worked  satisfactorily  for  every- 
body else,  worked  an  injustice  to  them.  Let  us  go 
farther  and  say  that  the  mere  handful  of  objectors  were 
right  in  such  contention.     Would  the  95  per  cent,  of  the 


38  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

people  wlio  were  prospering  under  tlie  system  neverthe- 
less voluntarily  overturn  it  and  impoverish  themselves 
merely  that  5  per  cent,  might  become  wealthy  ? 

But  tlierc  is  still  another  side  to  the  "  dead  level  "  ob- 
jection. Is  not  enough  enough?  Who  but  a  glutton 
wants  more  food  than  he  should  eat?  Who  but  a  fop 
■wants  more  clothing  than  he  needs  to  wear?  Who  but 
a  man  who  has  been  pampered  with  riches,  or  spoiled  by 
the  envy  that  riches  so  often  produce,  wants  more  than  a 
comfortable,  roomy,  sanitary  house  in  which  to  live? 
Does  the  possession  of  more  things  than  these  make  the 
few  who  have  them  happier? 

Socialists  doubt  it.  If  they  did  not  doubt  it,  they 
would  still  be  against  conditions  that  give  such  ad- 
vantages to  a  few  who  are  not  socially  useful  while  deny- 
ing even  ordinary  comforts  to  everyone  else.  And, 
right  here,  Socialists  again  ask  these  questions :  "  Even 
if  such  luxuries  be  conceded  as  advantages,  are  we  not 
paying  too  great  a  price  to  give  them  to  a  few?  Is  it 
well  that  so  many  should  have  no  home  in  order  that  a 
few  should  have  many  homes?  And,  if  there  is  to  be 
any  difference  in  homes,  ought  not  the  difference  to  be 
in  favor  of  those  who  are  most  useful  instead  of  those 
who  are  the  most  predatory  ?  " 

Socialists  contend  that  under  Socialism,  everybody 
could  not  only  have  work  all  the  time,  but  that  everybody 
could  live  as  well  as  now  does  the  man  whose  income  is 
$5,000  a  year.  They  point  to  the  fact  that  the  man  who 
now  spends  $5,000  a  year  on  his  living,  does  not  consume 
the  products  of  very  much  human  labor.  He  has  a  com- 
fortable house,  but  comfortable,  sanitary  houses  are  not 
hard  to  build.  Machinery  makes  almost  all  of  the  mate- 
rials that  go  into  them,  and  makes  them  cheaply.  And 
a  house  properly  built  lasts  a  lifetime. 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  39 

The  $5,ooo-a-year  man  and  his  family  also  eat  some 
food.  But  the  flour  is  made  with  machinery  at  low  cost, 
as  are  also  many  other  articles.  The  raw  materials 
come  from  the  earth  at  the  cost  of  human  labor,  but  the 
profits  that  are  added  to  them  by  capitalists  represent  no 
sort  of  labor. 

So  is  it  with  clothing,  furniture  and  everything  else 
that  the  $5,ooo-a-year  man  and  his  family  consume. 
Everything  is  made  cheaply  and  rapidly  with  machinery. 
The  workers  who  make  these  things  get  little.  The  con- 
sumer pays  much.  The  difference  between  the  cost  of 
making  and  the  selling  price  is  what  eats  up  a  large  part 
of  the  $5,000.  Socialists  believe  that  by  cutting  out  all 
of  this  difference  and  cutting  out  enforced  idleness,  ev- 
erybody could  live  as  well  as  the  $5,ooo-man  now  lives. 
This  is  only  an  approximation,  of  course. 

Now  we  come  to  the  question  of  rising.  What  chance 
would  a  man  have  to  rise  under  Socialism  ? 

Let  us  see,  first,  what  is  meant  by  rising.  A  man  can 
rise  with  his  fellows  or  he  can  rise  without  them.  I  am 
speaking  now,  of  course,  only  of  rising  in  the  financial 
scale.  Habits  of  thought  have  been  inculcated  in  us 
which  too  often  prevent  us  from  thinking  of  rising  in 
any  other  way.  When  we  think  of  bettering  our  con- 
dition, we  usually  think  in  terms  of  money.  We  seldom 
think  in  terms  of  greater  leisure  and  greater  freedom  to 
do  the  things  that  make  life  really  worth  while;  knowing 
^that  rich  men  are  u.sually  the  slaves  of  their  money,  we 
nevertheless  want  to  be  slaves. 

Socialism  is  not  intended  to  help  the  man  who  wants 
to  rise  financially  above  his  fellows.  It  throws  out  no 
bait  to  him.  A  few  men  will  undoubtedly  rise  a  little 
above  their  fellows  during  the  early  stages  of  Socialism, 
but  they  will  not  rise  very  much  and  there  will  not  be 


40         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

very  many  of  them.  Socialism  is  for  all,  not  for  a  few. 
It  is  devoted  to  the  task  of  raising  the  financial  standing 
of  everybody  who  does  useful  labor  and  lowering  the 
financial  standing  of  everybody  who  does  not.  Socialists 
say  that  if  Socialism  were  otherwise,  it  would  be  no  bet- 
ter than  the  lottery  which  is  provided  by  the  capitalist 
system.  Socialists  do  not  believe  in  the  lottery  princi- 
ple. They  have  observed  that  the  gentlemen  who  run 
lotteries,  rather  than  the  ones  who  play  them,  wear  the 
diamonds.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  an  occasional  washer- 
woman draws  $22,000  with  which  she  knows  not  what  to 
do,  change  their  minds  about  the  game. 

See  what  a  game  it  is  that  we  are  now  playing.  We 
teach  our  small  boys  that  this  is  a  country  of  glorious 
opportunities.  In  picturing  the  possibilities  before  them, 
we  know  no  bounds.  We  go  even  to  the  brink  of  the 
ultimate  and  look  over.  Away  in  the  distance,  we 
see  the  White  House,  and  point  to  it.  "  There,"  we  say 
to  our  boys,  "  there  is  where  you  may  some  day  be. 
Each  of  you  has  a  chance  to  be  President.  And,  if  you 
should  not  be  President,  each  of  you  has  a  chance  to  be  a 
Rockefeller  or  a  Carnegie.  Carnegie  began  as  a  bobbin 
boy.  Rockefeller  began  as  a  clerk  in  an  oil  store.  If 
you  are  honest  and  industrious,  perhaps  you  can  do  as 
much." 

Now,  what  are  the  facts?  Not  one  of  those  boys  has 
much  more  chance  of  becoming  the  President  than  a 
ring-tailed  monkey  has  of  becoming  Caruso.  It  is  not 
that  the  boys  are  worthless  —  they  may  have  in  them 
better  timber  than  any  past  President  ever  contained. 
But  unless  we  shorten  the  Presidential  term,  and  shorten 
it  a  good  deal,  we  cannot  accommodate  very  many  of 
the  lads  with  the  use  of  the  White  House.  During  the 
next  eighty  years,  even  if  no  President  shall  serve  more 


THE  VIRTUOUS  GRAFTERS  41 

than  one  term,  there  can  be  no  more  than  twenty  Presi- 
dents. During  the  same  time  —  if  we  go  on  repeating 
such  fooHshness  —  perhaps  a  bilHon  boys  will  be 
solemnly  assured  that  each  of  them  has  a  chance  to  be 
President,  thougli,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  only  twenty  boys 
can  cash  in  on  their  chances. 

Do  we  never  consider  how  ridiculous  we  make  our- 
selves? Do  we  never  fear  the  crushing  question  that 
some  bright  boy  some  day  will  ask :  "  Dad,  just  how 
much  do  you  think  twenty  chances  in  a  billion  are 
worth  ?  " 

I  mention  this  only  to  show  at  what  an  early  age  we 
begin  to  hold  out  to  our  boys  false  hopes  of  the  future. 
I  cannot  attempt  to  explain  the  fact  that  no  boy  asks  his 
father  why,  in  such  a  country  of  glorious  possibilities  as 
this,  he  contents  himself  with  driving  a  truck  —  but  that 
does  not  matter.  The  point  is  that  we  go  on  fooling  the 
boys  until  they  are  old  enough  to  know  better.  They  are 
not  very  old  when  this  time  comes.  The  world  teaches 
them  young.  It  is  the  exceptionally  stupid  young  man 
who  does  not  know,  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  that  the 
chances  against  him  in  playing  for  a  Presidency,  a  Rock- 
efellership,  or  a  Carnegieship  are  infinitely  greater  than 
would  have  been  the  chances  against  him,  if  he  had  lived 
two  generations  earlier  and  played  the  Louisiana  Lot- 
tery. Beside  such  a  prospect,  the  chance  of  winning  a 
fortune  at  the  race  track  looks  like  a  certainty.  Yet  we 
drove  the  Louisiana  Lottery  from  the  country  because  it 
was  such  a  delusion  that  it  amounted  to  a  swindle,  and 
we  are  beginning  to  drive  tlie  race  tracks  out  of  the  coun- 
try for  the  same  reason. 

Socialists  believe  it  would  be  belter  not  to  promise  so 
much  and  to  perform  more.  They  believe  it  would  be 
better  to  promise  each   industrious  man  approximately 


42  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

the  present  comfort-cciiiivalcnt  of  $5,000  a  year  and 
give  it  to  him,  than  to  hold  out  to  him  tlic  hope  of  great 
riches  and  give  him,  instead,  great  poverty  or  great  un- 
easiness because  of  the  fear  of  poverty. 

The  Sociahsts  may  be  wrong  in  all  of  this,  but  they 
cheerfully  place  the  burden  of  proof  that  the  world  is 
well  upon  those  who  make  the  claim  that  it  is  well. 
They  ask  the  capitalists  to  find  more  than  the  exceptional, 
rare  man  who  has  realized  more  than  a  fraction  of  the 
promises  that  were  held  out  to  him  in  his  youth.  For 
every  such  man  that  the  capitalists  may  produce,  the 
Socialists  will  undertake  to  find  twenty  men  who  are  liv- 
ing from  hand  to  mouth,  either  in  poverty  or  in  the  fear 
of  poverty. 

Such  is  the  Socialist  position  with  regard  to  "  rising  " 
in  the  world.  So  far  as  Socialists  are  able  to  discover, 
all  of  the  rising  that  most  persons  do  is  done  in  the  early 
morning  —  about  an  hour  before  the  7  o'clock  whistle 
blows. 

"  Early  to  bed  and  early  to  rise  "  is  not  in  violation  of 
the  Socialist  constitution,  but  Socialists  respectfully  con- 
tend that  the  rising  should  be  made  worth  while.  And, 
they  also  contend  that  if  the  people  must  be  promised 
something  to  make  them  rise,  it  is  better,  in  the  long  run, 
to  promise  something  and  give  it  to  them  than  to  promise 
more  and  not  give  it  to  them.  The  best  that  can  be  said 
for  the  latter  plan  is  that  it  has  been  a  long  time  tried 
and  until  recently  has  worked  satisfactorily  for  those 
who  made  the  promises  they  failed  to  keep. 


CHAPTER  IV 

WHY    SOCIALISTS    PREACH    DISCONTENT 

RICH  men  tell  poor  men  to  beware  of  Socialism 
because  Socialists  preach  discontent.  Rich  men 
also  tell  poor  men  to  beware  of  Socialism  because 
Socialists  "  preach  the  class  struggle,"  and  try  to  "  array- 
class  against  class,"  politically. 

It  is  all  true.  Socialists  do  these  things.  They  make 
no  bones  about  doing  them.  They  say  they  would  feel 
ashamed  of  themselves  if  they  did  not  do  them.  If  they 
had  a  thousand  times  the  power  they  have,  they  would  do 
these  things  a  thousand  times  harder  than  they  do.  Just 
so  rapidly  as  they  gain  power,  they  are  doing  these  things 
harder. 

What  is  it  that  they  do  ?     Let  us  see. 

Socialists  preach  discontent.  Discontent  with  what? 
Discontent  with  home?  Discontent  with  children?  Dis- 
content with  friends?  Discontent  with  honest  labor? 
Discontent  with  ambition?  Discontent  with  life  as  a 
whole?     ^\'hy,  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Socialists  preach  discontent  only  zvith  poverty  that  is 
made  by  robbery,  and  the  ills  that  follow  in  its  wake. 

The  Hon.  Charles  Russell,  of  England,  said  in  1912 
that  12,000,000  of  England's  45,000.000  population 
were  on  the  verge  of  starvation  —  shall  we  be  satisfied 
with  that? 

A  recent  investigation  into  the  causes  of  tiie  shockingly 
high  rate  of  infant  mortality  in  Germany*  shows  that 
**  the  children  of  poverty  hunger  before  they  are  born. 

♦"The  Proletarian  Child,"  by  Alliert  Laiigun,  published  in  Berlin. 

43 


44         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

They  come  into  the  world  ill-developed,  weaker  than  the 
children  of  plent3%  and  with  such  low  resistant  powers 
that  infant  mortality  rages  in  their  ranks  like  an  epi- 
demic."    Shall  we  be  satisfied  with  that? 

Here  in  the  United  States  millions  of  men  cannot  get 
work,  while  millions  of  men,  women  and  children  are 
compelled  to  work  for  starvation  wages.  Shall  we  be 
satisfied  with  that? 

The  census  reports  show  that  most  people  do  not  own 
the  roofs  over  their  heads,  having  nothing  but  the 
clothes  upon  their  backs  and  their  meager  furniture. 
Shall  we  be  satisfied  with  that? 

We  are  creating  wealth  rapidly,  but  what  we  make  is 
concentrating  into  so  few  hands  that  a  few  men  hold  us 
as  in  the  hollow  of  their  hands,  telling  us  whether  we 
may  work,  telling  us  what  wages  we  shall  receive  if  we 
work,  telling  us  how  much  we  shall  pay  for  meat,  sugar, 
lumber,  clothing,  salt  and  steel.  Shall  we  be  satisfied 
with  that? 

The  Stanley  Steel  Committee's  investigations  showed 
that,  by  a  system  of  interlocking  directorates,  eighteen 
men  control  thirty-five  billions  of  industrial  property  — 
a  third  of  the  entire  national  wealth.  Shall  we  be  sat- 
isfied with  that? 

In  times  of  industrial  depression  more  than  5,000,000 
men  who  want  to  work  are  refused  the  right  to  do  so, 
because  the  few  men  who  control  everything  cannot  see 
a  profit  for  themselves  in  letting  5,000,000  men  work  to 
support  themselves.      Shall  we  be  satisfied  with  that? 

The  cost  of  living,  mounting  higher  and  higher,  is 
crowding  an  increasing  number  of  unorganized  workers 
into  the  bottomless  pit  in  which  men,  women  and  children 
sufifer  the  tortures  of  hell.  Shall  we  be  satisfied  with 
that? 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    45 

Mr.  ]\Iorgan,  with  the  tremendous  money-power  that 
is  behind  him,  is  a  greater  power  in  this  country  than  the 
President  of  the  Lnited  States,  or  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.     Shall  we  be  satisfied  with  that? 

Some  gentlemen  are  satisfied  with  these  facts,  but 
Socialists  are  not.  They  are  preaching  discontent. 
Should  we  not  be  worthy  of  your  scorn  and  contempt  if 
we  did  not  preach  discontent?  If  such  discontent  is 
wrong,  contentment  with  the  facts  against  which  Social- 
ists cry  out  must  be  right.  Who  has  both  the  candor 
and  the  effrontery  to  say  that  contentment  with  such 
facts  is  right  ?  Should  we  be  contented  with  the  woolen- 
mill  owners  of  New  England  who,  fattening  upon  high 
Republican  tariffs,  starve  men,  women  and  little  children 
with  low  wages?  Should  we  be  contented  with  the  cot- 
ton-mill owners  of  the  South,  who,  under  the  protection 
of  Democratic  state  administrations,  fill  both  their  mills 
and  the  graveyards  with  little  children?  Should  we  be 
contented  with  a  world  in  which  a  few  own  everything 
and  the  rest  do  everything  —  a  world  in  which  the 
worker  is  but  a  fleeing  fugitive  from  inevitable  fate,  own- 
ing neither  his  job,  nor  the  roof  over  his  head? 

The  cry  of  this  wronged  worker  has  come  down 
through  the  ages,  but  never  was  his  hold  upon  the  means 
of  life  so  slight  as  it  is  to-day. 

"Every  creature  has  a  home  — 
But  thou,  oh  workingman,  hast  none." 

So  Shelley  sang  before  machinery  came.  And,  oh,  the 
truth  of  it  —  the  truth  of  it  still!  And  the  pity  of  it  I 
In  these  days  the  inexcusability  of  it!  Yet  when  we  So- 
cialists cry  out  against  it  —  when  wc  try  to  awaken  the 
workingman  to  a  realization  that  a  new  world  was  born 
when  the  steam  engine  was  born,  and  that  this  new  world 


46         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

may  be  and  should  be  for  him  —  we  are  rebuked  by  the 
capitahsts  because  we  are  "  preaching  discontent." 

Of  course  we  are  preaching  discontent.  We  are  going 
to  preach  it,  if  present  conditions  persist,  so  long  as  we 
have  breath  with  which  to  preach.  We  respectfully  de- 
cline to  permit  capitalists,  as  such,  to  tell  us  what  we  may 
or  may  not  preach.  We  preach  what  we  please  without' 
their  leave.  They  preach  what  they  please  without  our 
leave.  At  intervals,  they  preach  a  good  deal,  tlirough 
some  of  the  magazines,  about  religion.  Big  cap- 
ital is  behind  the  "  Men  and  Religion  Forward  "  move- 
ment, and  some  other  similar  movements.  These  gentle- 
men who  are  living  in  luxury  off  what  they  take  from  us 
tell  us  to  take  religion  from  them  in  the  magazines  and 
be  happy.  "  In  the  sweet  by  and  by  "  we  are  to  get  our 
own,  while  they  get  their  own  now.  Socialists  are  wil- 
ling to  stand  in  on  all  of  the  sweet  by  and  by  they  can  get 
by  and  by,  but  they  are  also  determined  to  made  a  pro- 
digious fight  for  the  sweet  here  and  now. 

Socialists  regard  poverty,  in  this  day,  as  nothing  less 
than  a  scandal.  Before  the  age  of  machinery  there  was 
reason  for  some  poverty.  Now  there  is  none.  We  can 
make  all  the  wealth  we  need  and  more.  We  could  cut 
our  work-day  in  two  and  still  make  all  we  need.  Yet 
poverty  is  scourging  the  world  as  wars  never  scourged  it. 
In  Germany,  England,  the  United  States  —  wherever 
capitalism  has  reached  a  high  state  of  development  — 
men,  women  and  children  are  pursued  to  the  grave  by 
poverty  or  the  fear  of  poverty. 

Some  gentlemen  believe  this  is  all  right.  They  believe 
this  is  as  it  should  be.  With  such  gentlemen  Socialists 
do  not  hope  to  make  headway.  With  such  gentlemen 
Socialists  do  not  seek  to  make  headway.  They  belong 
to  the  rich  class  who  are  grafting  off  the  working  class. 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    47 

From  them  Socialists  expect  no  quarter,  nor  will  they 
give  any.  The  conflict  must  go  to  a  finish.  There  will 
be  no  surrender  upon  the  part  of  the  Socialists.  The  So- 
cialist party  will  never  fuse  with  any  of  their  parties.  If 
the  Socialist  party  were  standing  still,  instead  of  going 
ahead,  it  would  stand  still  alone  for  a  thousand  year« 
before  it  would  go  a  foot  with  any  capitalist  party. 

IMake  no  mistake.  This  is  all  true.  You  saw  the! 
Greenback  party  wither  and  blow  away.  You  saw  the 
Populist  party  swallowed  by  the  Democratic  party.  But 
you  will  never  see  the  Socialist  party  wither,  nor  will  you 
ever  see  it  swallowed.  Its  members  are  not  composed 
of  material  that  withers  or  fuses.  Right  or  wrong,  they 
are  actuated  by  the  highest  ideal  that  can  move  a  human 
being  —  the  ideal  of  human  justice.  And  they  are  going 
down  the  line  on  their  ideal,  regardless  of  the  length  of 
the  line  or  of  the  obstructions  that  may  be  placed  in  their 
way.  After  a  man  has  seen  Socialism,  he  can  never 
thereafter  defend  capitalism.  That  is  to  say,  he  cannot 
if  he  is  honest.  Two  or  three  out  of  a  million  are  not. 
Such  persons,  not  infrequently,  are  hired  by  capitalists 
to  "  expose  "  Socialism. 

But  while  Socialists  do  not  hope  to  make  any  progress 
among  the  rich,  they  do  hope  to  make  progress  among 
the  working  class.  Again,  I  must  explain  that  Socialists 
do  not  consider  the  working  class  to  be  exclusively  com- 
posed of  those  who  wear  overalls.  Socialists  include  in 
the  working  class  all  of  those  who  do  useful  labor.  It 
matters  not  whether  such  labor  be  done  by  the  digger  in 
the  ditch  or  by  the  general  superintendent  of  a  railroad. 
Socialists  place  all  of  those  who  do  useful  labor  in  the 
working  class.  Workers  are  creators  of  wealth.  Cre- 
ators of  wealth  differ  from  capitalists  in  this:  workers 
make;   capitalists    take.     Cajiitalists   arc    profit-scckcrs. 


48         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

The  small  merchant  takes  a  profit,  but  it  is  not  the  kind 
of  a  profit  that  the  big  cai)italist  takes.  The  small  mer- 
chant's profit  represents  only  his  labor,  and  is,  therefore, 
really  wages.  The  big  capitalist's  profits  represent  no 
sort  of  labor.  It  is  such  profits  that  set  capitalists  and 
workers  at  war,  because  the  profits  come  out  of  the  work- 
ers.    Socialists  call  this  war  the  class  struggle. 

Socialists  are  opposed  to  class  war.  Socialists  believe 
there  should  be  no  classes.  There  would  be  no  classes 
if  everybody  worked  at  useful  labor  and  took  no  more 
than  belonged  to  him.  But  if  some  men  will  not  work 
at  useful  labor,  choosing,  instead,  to  make  war  upon 
those  who  are  working,  who  is  to  blame?  Certainly  not 
the  workers.  They  are  trying  to  get  nothing  that  be- 
longs to  anyone  else.  They  have  never  yet  been  able  to 
keep  what  belonged  to  them. 

Socialists  recognize  these  facts.  They  say  a  class 
struggle  is  in  progress.  Anybody  who  denies  their  state- 
ment must  necessarily  know  nothing  of  the  existence  of 
trusts,  labor  unions,  courts,  lobbyists,  crooked  legisla- 
tors, millionaires,  paupers,  overworked  workers,  or  men 
who  are  underworked  because  they  can  get  no  work. 
Anyone  who  recognizes  the  existence  of  these  things  can- 
not well  deny  either  the  existence  of  classes  or  the  exist- 
ence of  a  struggle.  The  dead  of  this  warfare  are  upon 
every  industrial  battlefield,  where  the  fierce  desire  for 
profits  sends  workers  to  their  doom  for  lack  of  the  safe- 
guards that  would  have  saved  their  lives.  The  wounded 
are  in  every  poverty-stricken  home. 

Either  these  statements  are  true  or  they  are  not.  If 
they  are  true,  is  it  wiser  to  recognize  their  truth,  or, 
ostrich-like,  to  stick  our  heads  in  the  sand  and  deny  both 
the  existence  of  classes  and  the  class  struggle?    Socialists 


.WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    49 

believe  it  is  wiser  to  recognize  the  existence  of  the  facts. 
They  deplore  the  existence  of  the  class  struggle,  but  they 
can  see  only  harm  in  closing  our  eyes  to  it.  If  their  con- 
tention is  correct  a  small  body  of  capitalists  are  robbing 
the  great  working  class.  If  the  working  class  has  not 
found  out  who  is  robbing  it  it  cannot  find  out  too  quickly. 
Nor  can  the  working  class  find  out  too  quickly  the  meth- 
ods by  which  it  is  being  robbed. 

It  is  the  advocacy  of  these  ideas  that  has  caused  the 
Socialists  to  be  censured  by  the  rich  for  trying  to  "  array 
class  against  class."  If  one  class  is  being  robbed  by 
another  ought  not  the  class  that  is  being  robbed  to  be 
politically  arrayed  against  the  class  that  is  robbing  it? 
Do  we  not  array  those  whose  houses  are  broken  into  by 
burglars  against  the  burglars?  Is  not  the  existence  of 
police  forces  sufficient  proof  that  we  do?  If  capitalists, 
working  through  laws  they  have  made,  are  robbing  the 
workers  of  thousands,  where  burglars  take  cents,  why 
should  not  the  workers  be  politically  arrayed  against  the 
capitalists  even  more  solidly  than  they  are  arrayed 
against  burglars? 

The  workers,  either  singly  or  collectively,  as  in  their 
unions,  are  already  arrayed  against  the  capitalists,  so  far 
as  fighting  for  more  wages  is  concerned.  Without  any 
help  from  Socialists,  we  thus  have  here  class  arrayed 
against  class.  Socialists  seek  only  to  extend  this  conflict 
to  the  ballot-box.  They  ask  the  worker  to  remember 
when  he  votes  as  well  as  when  he  strikes  that  he  belongs 
to  the  working  class.  They  point  out  to  him  that  he  is 
robbed  under  the  forms  of  law  and  that  the  robbery  can- 
not be  stopped  until  the  operations  of  capitalist  laws  are 
stopped.  The  operations  of  capitalist  laws  cannot  be 
stopped  until  working  men  stop  them.     Working  men 


[50         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

can  stop  tliem  only  by  uniting  at  the  ballot-box  and  wrest- 
ing from  the  capitalist  class  the  control  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

In  this  Avay  only  do  Socialists  try  to  "  array  class 
against  class."  They  do  not  try  to  array  men  against 
men.  They  do  not  try  to  engender  hatred  of  Mr.  Mor- 
gan, Mr,  Rockefeller,  or  any  other  great  capitalist. 
Socialists  have  nothing  against  any  rich  man  individually. 
They  regard  all  great  capitalists  as  the  natural  and  inev- 
itable products  of  the  capitalist  system.  If  the  great 
capitalists  are  sometimes  bad,  it  is  because  the  capitalist 
system  makes  them  bad.  If  the  particular  capitalists 
who  are  bad  had  never  been  born,  the  capitalist  system 
would  have  made  others  do  the  same  bad  acts.  There- 
fore Socialists  are  opposed  to  the  system  that  makes  man 
bad  rather  than  to  the  men  who  have  been  made  bad  by 
the  system.  If  every  capitalist  in  the  world  had  gone 
down  with  the  Titanic,  Socialists  would  have  expected 
absolutely  no  improvement  in  conditions,  because  the 
capitalist  system  would  still  have  remained.  Other  men 
would  simply  have  taken  their  places,  and  the  wrongs 
w^ould  have  gone  on.  Therefore,  Socialists  leave  it  to 
Democratic  and  Republican  politicians  to  point  out  "  bad 
men  "  and  say  if  this  man  or  that  man  were  in  jail  we 
should  have  no  more  robbery.  The  slightest  reflection 
should  reveal  the  fallacious  character  of  such  comment. 
Where  are  all  of  the  "  bad  men  "  of  the  last  two  genera- 
tions? Where  are  William  H.  Vanderbilt,  Jay  Gould, 
E.  H.  Harriman  and  the  others?  They  are  not  simply 
in  jail  —  they  are  dead.  But  who  noticed  the  slightest 
abatement  of  robbery  when  they  died?  Who  will  note 
the  slightest  improvement  of  conditions  when  the  "  bad 
men"  of  the  present  day  are  dead?  Then  how  ridicu- 
lous it  is  to  say  that  if  Mr.  Morgan,  Mr.  Rockefeller 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    51 

and  some  others  were  in  jail  we  should  have  no  more 
robbery.  So  long  as  we  have  a  system  that  makes  men 
bad  we  shall  have  bad  men. 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  it  is  about  the  capitalist  sys- 
tem that  makes  men  bad.  We  shall  not  have  far  to 
look.  It  is  the  private  ownership  and  control,  for  the 
sake  of  private  profits,  of  the  means  of  life.  Think  how 
gigantic  is  this  power!  All  of  our  food,  clothing  and 
shelter  is  made  with  machinery.  A  few  own  the  ma- 
chinery. The  others  cannot  use  it  without  permission. 
And,  if  permission  be  given,  it  can  be  used  only  upon  such 
terms  as  the  owners  offer.  Those  terms  are  always  the 
lowest  wages  for  which  anybody  can  be  found  to  work. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  few  who  control  this  ma- 
chinery go  mad  with  the  desire  to  accumulate  wealth? 
Is  it  any  wonder  that  they  press  their  advantage  to  the 
limit?  Are  you  sure  you  would  have  done  less  if  you 
had  been  placed  in  the  same  circumstances?  I  am  not 
sure  I  should  have  done  less.  In  fact,  I  am  quite  sure  I 
should  have  done  as  much,  or  more,  if  I  could.  I  say 
this  because  I  take  into  account  the  tremendous  power  of 
habit  and  environment. 

An  environment  of  money  makes  those  whom  it  sur- 
rounds forget  men.  The  Titanic  was  not  raced  through 
icebergs  to  her  doom  because  her  owners  were  indifferent 
to  the  loss  of  human  life.  The  Titanic  was  raced 
to  her  doom  because  her  owners  forgot  human  life. 
They  thought  only  of  the  money  that  would  come  from 
the  advertisement  of  a  quick  trip  across  the  Atlantic.  If 
they  had  not  been  made  mad  by  this  thought  they  would 
at  least  have  remembered  their  ship,  with  its  cost  of 
$8,000,000.  But  in  their  money-madness  they  forgot 
not  only  their  passengers,  but  their  own  ship.  Yet,  if 
the  manager  of  the  company  had  been  sailing  the  ship  for 


'52    THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

the  government,  witliout  thought  of  profit,  he  would  have 
thought  of  the  passengers,  the  crew,  the  ship  and  the  ice- 
bergs. And  if  the  trusts  were  owned  by  the  government, 
the  men  in  charge  of  them  would  think  of  the  workers 
when  they  fixed  wages  and  of  the  consumers  when  they 
fixed  the  prices  of  finished  products. 

So  easy  is  it  to  dispose  of  the  argument  that  Socialism 
is  impracticable  because  it  could  not  be  made  to  work 
"  without  changing  human  nature."  Some  men  believe 
we  must  forever  go  on  grabbing,  grabbing,  grabbing, 
while  others  go  on  starving,  starving,  starving.  Human 
nature  will  "  change  "  just  so  rapidly  as  conditions  are 
changed.  If  one  sits  on  a  red-hot  stove,  it  is  "  human 
nature  "  to  arise.  But  if  the  stove  be  permitted  to  cool, 
one  who  sits  on  it  will  not  arise  until  other  reasons  than 
heat  have  made  him  wish  to  do  so.  Yet,  the  human 
nature  of  the  man  in  each  case  is  the  same.  It  has  in  no 
wise  changed.     It  is  only  the  stove  that  has  changed. 

Precisely  so  will  the  actions  of  men  change  when  the 
production  of  the  necessities  of  life  by  the  government 
has  demonstrated  that  no  one  need  ever  fear  the  lack  of 
the  means  with  which  to  live.  The  very  knowledge  that 
the  stomach  is  taken  for  granted  —  that  with  free  oppor- 
tunity to  labor,  the  material  necessities  and  comforts  of 
life  are  as  assured  as  the  air  itself  —  will  destroy  the  in- 
centive to  accumulate  more  wealth  than  is  needed.  Even 
the  richest  now  consume  and  waste  but  a  fraction  of  the 
w^ealth  they  possess.  Yet  they  are  spurred  on  to  seek 
still  further  accumulations,  because  it  is  only  so  recently, 
comparatively,  that  the  whole  race  was  fighting  for  the 
means  of  life,  that  the  madness  for  money  is  still  in  the 
air. 

The  madness  for  money  will  not  always  be  in  the  air. 
Human  nature  is  wonderfully  adaptive.     As  soon  as  thQ 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT     53 

workers  take  control  of  the  government  for  the  benefit 
of  their  class,  and  demonstrate  the  perfect  ease  with 
which  enough  weahh  can  be  produced  to  enable  every- 
body to  live  as  well  as  the  $5,000  a  year  man  now  lives, 
the  scramble  for  wealth  will  quickly  subside.  It  will 
not  subside  instantly,  but  it  will  subside.  A  few  may 
grumble,  as  their  industries  are  bought  and  taken  over 
by  the  government,  but  they  will  have  to  take  it  out 
in  grumbling.  They  will  not  even  have  to  work  if  they 
don't  want  to.  They  will  have  enough  money  obtained 
from  the  sale  of  their  plants  to  enable  them  to  live 
without  working.  But  none  of  their  successors  will  ever 
be  able  to  live  without  working,  because  no  opportunity 
will  exist  for  anyone  to  obtain  the  products  of  another's 
labor.  Goods  will  be  made  and  sold  by  the  government 
at  cost.  No  capitalist  will  stand  between  producers  and 
consumers.  The  people  will  be  their  own  capitalists, 
owning  their  own  industrial  machinery  and  managing  it 
through  the  government. 

Those  who  are  opposed  to  Socialism  ask  what  as- 
surance we  have  that,  under  Socialism,  the  people  would 
be  able  to  manage  their  government.  Others  ask  why 
we  should  not  be  as  likely  to  have  grafters  in  office  under 
Socialist  government  as  we  are  now  under  Democratic 
or  Republican  government?  Still  others  believe  that  a 
Socialist  government  would  inevitably  become  tyrannical 
and  despotic,  destroying  all  individual  liberty  and  eventu- 
ally bringing  down  civilization  in  a  heap. 

Let  us  answer  these  objections  one  by  one.  And  let 
us  first  inquire  why  the  people  are  not  now  able  to  man- 
age and  control  their  government. 

In  the  first  place,  our  form  of  government  does  not 
permit  the  people  to  control  it.  The  rich  men  who  made 
our  constitution  —  and  they  were  rich  for  their  day;  not 


54         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

a  working  man  among  them  —  purposely  made  a  consti- 
tution under  which  nothing  could  be  done  to  which  the 
rich  might  object.  That  is  why  the  United  States  sen- 
ate was  created.  It  was  frankly  declared  in  the  consti- 
tutional convention  that  the  senate  was  intended  to  rep- 
resent wealth.  The  house  of  representatives  was  to 
represent  the  people,  but  the  senate  was  to  represent 
wealth,  and  the  house  of  representatives  could  enact  no 
legislation  without  the  consent  of  the  senate.  Moreover, 
the  United  States  supreme  court,  over  which  the  people 
have  absolutely  no  control,  was  created  to  construe  the 
laws  made  by  congress. 

That  is  the  first  reason  why  the  people  do  not  now  con- 
trol their  government  —  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
did  not  intend  that  they  should  control  it,  and  the  rich 
men  of  our  day  are  taking  advantage  of  their  oppor- 
tunity to  control  it  themselves.  The  second  reason  is 
that  the  capitalist  system,  based,  as  it  is,  upon  private 
profits,  makes  it  highly  profitable  for  the  capitalist  class 
to  control  the  government.  The  robberies  of  capitalism 
are  committed  through  laws,  and  control  of  the  govern- 
ment is  necessary  to  obtain  and  maintain  the  laws. 

Socialists  would  abolish  the  senate,  thus  vesting  the 
entire  legislative  power  in  the  house  of  representatives. 
They  would  take  from  the  President  the  power  to  ap- 
point justices  of  the  supreme  court,  and  give  the  people 
the  right  to  elect  all  judges.  They  would  take  from  the 
United  States  supreme  court  the  usurped  power  to  de- 
clare acts  of  congress  unconstitutional,  and  give  to  the 
people  the  power  to  say  what  acts  of  congress  should 
be  set  aside.  They  would  make  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  amendable  by  majority  vote,  and  they 
would  make  every  public  official  in  the  country,  from 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    55 

President  down,  subject  to  immediate  recall  at  any  time, 
by  the  vote  of  the  people. 

Socialists  respectfully  offer  these  reasons,  among 
others,  for  believing  that  under  Socialism,  the  people 
would  be  able  to  control  their  government.  Another 
reason  is  that,  under  Socialism,  there  would  be  no  trust 
senators  or  representatives,  no  representatives  of  great 
private  banking  interests  or  other  aggregations  pf  pri- 
vate capital,  because  there  would  be  no  such  private  in- 
terests. 

The  reasons  are  equally  plain  why,  under  Socialism, 
we  should  not  be  as  certain  to  have  Socialist  grafters 
in  office  as  we  are  now  to  have  Democratic  and  Repub- 
lican grafters.  But  not  one  of  these  reasons  is  that 
Socialists  believe  themselves  to  be  more  nearly  honest 
than  anyone  else.  Socialists  have  no  such  delusion. 
Socialists  simply  point  to  the  fact  that  all  of  the  present 
grafting  is  to  secure  private  profits.  When  the  profit 
system  is  abolished,  and  goods  are  made  for  use  instead 
of  for  profit,  nothing  will  be  left  to  graft  for.  Public 
officials  could  still  steal,  of  course;  they  could  falsify 
pay-rolls,  and  probably  in  many  other  ways  rob  the  peo- 
ple. But,  in  the  first  place,  public  officials  now  do  little 
of  this  sort  of  clumsy  stealing,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
whatever  stealing  of  this  sort  that  may  be  done  under 
Socialism  will  be  punished  in  precisely  the  same  way 
that  it  now  is,  except  more  vigorously.  Moreover,  So- 
cialists do  not  believe  there  will  be  much  such  stealing, 
or  that  it  will  long  continue.  And  so  far  as  grafting  is 
concerned,  when  the  private  profit  system  that  makes 
grafting  is  abolished,  grafting  will  be  abolished  along 
with  it. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  charge  that  a  Socialist  gov- 


56         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

ernmcnt  would  become  tyrannical,  despotic,  destroy  in- 
dividual liberty,  and  thus  destroy  civilization  itself. 

With  all  legislative  power  vested  in  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives which  is  elected  by  the  people,  all  judges 
elected  by  the  people  and  the  United  States  supreme 
court  shorn  of  its  usurped  power  to  declare  laws  uncon- 
stitutional, it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  government  could 
become  tyrannical.  It  is  still  more  difficult  when  it  is 
considered  that,  under  the  Socialist  government,  the  peo- 
ple would  have  these  additional  powers : 

The  power  to  recall,  at  any  time,  any  official. 

The  power  to  enact,  by  direct  vote,  any  laws  that  their 
legislative  bodies  might  refuse  to  enact. 

The  power,  by  direct  vote,  to  repeal  any  law  that  their 
legislative  bodies  had  enacted. 

And  the  power,  by  direct  vote,  to  amend  their  con- 
stitutions, both  federal  and  state,  any  time  they  wished 
to  do  so. 

If  there  could  be  any  tyranny  or  despotism  under  such 
a  form  of  government,  gentlemen  who  profess  to  be- 
lieve so  are  entitled  to  make  the  most  of  it. 

Many  good  persons  believe,  however,  that  if  Socialism 
were  to  come,  all  individual  liberty  would  be  lost.  Such 
persons  lack,  not  only  a  knowledge  of  Socialist  plans, 
but  a  sense  of  humor.  They  assume  that  we  now  have 
individual  liberty.  They  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  the 
average  boy,  as  soon  as  he  is  old  enough  to  work,  if  notj 
before,  is  grabbed  off  by  necessity  and  chucked  into  the 
nearest  job  at  hand.  The  boy  may  have  preferred  to 
work  at  something  else;  perhaps  even  he  is  better  fitted 
for  something  else.  But  the  pinch  of  necessity  both  com- 
pels him  to  work  and  to  take  what  he  can  find.  He  may 
rattle  around  in  two  or  three  occupations  before  he  finds 
one  in  which  he  stays  for  life,  but  the  other  occupations, 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    57 

like  the  first  one,  are  not  of  his  choosing.  He  takes 
each  of  them  simply  because  he  must  have  work. 

If  Sociahsm  would  enable  the  head  of  every  family 
to  earn  as  good  a  living  as  the  $5,ooo-a-year  man  now 
gets,  the  head  of  no  family  would  be  compelled  to  send 
his  children  out  to  work  until  they  had  completed,  at 
least,  the  high  school  course.  If  boys  were  not  com- 
pelled  to  go  to  work  so  young,  does  it  not  seem  likely 
that,  with  added  years,  they  would  be  better  able  to 
choose  an  occupation  that  would  be  more  nearly  suited 
both  to  their  tastes  and  their  abilities?  And  if  we  should 
destroy  the  power  of  poverty  to  push  boys  into  the  oc- 
cupation nearest  to  them,  should  we  be  justly  subject 
to  the  charge  that  we  had  destroyed,  or  even  impaired, 
the  boys'  individual  liberty? 

Persons  who  derive  their  knowledge  of  Socialism  from 
capitalist  sources  have  strange,  and  sometimes  awful, 
ideas  of  what  Socialism  is  setting  out  to  do.  They  are 
told,  and  many  of  them  believe,  that  under  Socialism, 
the  individual  would  be  a  mere  puppet  in  the  hands  of 
the  government,  not  arising  in  the  morning  until  the 
ringing  of  the  governmental  alarm  clock,  doing  during 
the  day  whatever  odd  jobs  might  be  assigned  to  him  by 
a  governmental  boss,  and  going  to  bed  at  night  when 
the  boss  told  him  to. 

Suppose  we  shake  up  this  trash  and  let  the  wind  blow 
through  it. 

Who  would  thus  tyrannize  over  the  people?  "The 
Socialists,"  it  is  answered.  But  who,  at  that  time,  will 
the  Socialists  be?  They  will  constitute  at  least  a  major- 
ity of  the  people,  will  they  not?  The  Socialists  will 
never  gain  control  of  the  government  until  they  become 
a  majority  —  the  Milwaukee  coalitii-»n  plan  of  the  old 
capitalist  parties  can  be  depended  upon  to  prevent  that. 


(58         .THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Then  what  you  are  asked  to  behevc  is  that  a  majority  of 
the  people  will  deliberately  go  about  it  to  create  and 
afterwards  maintain  a  form  of  government  and  industry 
under  which  the  majority  as  well  as  the  minority  will  be 
slaves. 

Remember  this :  Socialism  will  never  do  anything  that 
at  least  a  majority  of  the  people  do  not  want  done. 
This  is  not  a  promise,  it  is  fact.  A  Socialist  adminis- 
tration could  do  nothing  to  which  a  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple objected.  If  such  an  act  were  attempted,  the  ma- 
jority would  instantly  recall  the  administration,  wipe  out 
its  laws,  and  assert  its  own  will. 

And,  also,  remember  this:  If  the  Socialists,  after  the 
next  election,  were  to  control  every  department  of  the 
government  there  would  be  no  upheaval,  no  paralysis  of 
industry.  Everybody  would  go  to  work  the  next  morn- 
ing at  his  accustomed  task.  The  business  of  socializing 
industry  would  proceed  in  an  orderly,  deliberate  man- 
ner. One  industry  at  a  time  would  be  taken  over.  Per- 
haps the  railroads  would  be  taken  over  first.  A  year 
might  be  required  to  take  them  over.  But  not  a  wheel 
would  stop  turning  while  the  laws  were  being  changed. 

Gentlemen  who  talk  about  the  blotting  out  of  individ- 
ual liberty  under  a  Socialist  government  make  this  fatal 
mistake.  They  assume  that  a  minority  would  control 
a  Socialist  government,  precisely  as  a  minority  now  con- 
trols this  government.  And  having  made  this  error 
they  naturally  easily  proceed  to  the  next  error  —  the  as- 
sumption that  if  Socialists  were  to  establish  such  a  crazy 
government,  they  would  not  suffer  from  it  as  much  as 
anyone  else,  and,  therefore,  would  maintain  it  against 
the  will  of  the  others. 

There  is  absolutely  no  foundation  for  this  "  tyranny- 
lo§s-of-individual-libert^  "  charge.    A  government  con- 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    59 

trolled  by  the  people  cannot  tyrannize  over  the  people, 
nor  can  the  abolition  of  poverty  curtail,  under  democratic 
government,  the  individual  liberties  of  the  people.  Who 
now  has  the  most  individual  liberty  —  the  man  who  is 
poverty-stricken  or  the  man  who  isn't  ? 

Yet  Socialists  make  no  pretense  of  a  purpose  lo  create 
^a  world  in  which  the  worker  may  blithely  amble  up  to 
,the  governmental  employment  office  and  demand  a  job 
picking  a  guitar.  The  worker  may  amble  and  demand^ 
but  he  will  not  get  the  job  unless  there  is  a  guitar  to 
pick.  In  other  words,  Socialists  expect  to  exercise  or- 
dinary common  sense  in  the  conduct  of  industry. 
Broadly  speaking,  the  man  who  is  best  fitted  to  do  cer- 
tain work  will  be  given  that  work  to  do.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  plan  or  promise  anything  else.  At  the  same 
time,  the  destruction  of  poverty,  and  the  multiplication 
of  the  mass  of  manufactured  goods  that  will  follow  the 
satisfaction  of  all  of  the  people's  needs,  will  give  the 
workers  greater  freedom  in  exercising  their  discretion  ia 
the  choice  of  an  occupation. 

At  this  point  in  the  proceedings  som.ebody  always  in- 
quires, "  Who  will  do  the  dirty  work?  " 

Socialists  do  not  expect  ever  to  make  the  cleaning  of 
sewers  as  pleasant  as  the  packing  of  geraniums.  They 
do  expect,  however,  to  offer  such  extraordinarily 
good  compensation  for  this  extraordinarily  unpleasant 
work  that  the  sewers  will  be  cleaned.  Why  should  any- 
one expect  that  plan  to  fail,  since  the  present  plan  does 
not  fail?  We  now  offer  very  poor  wages  for  this  very 
unpleasant  work,  yet  the  sewers  do  not  go  uncleaned. 
Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  same  men  who  are  now  doing 
this  dirty  work  for  low  wages  would  refuse  to  do  it  for 
higli  wages?  Most  certainly  the  government  would  be 
compelled  to  offer  wages  high  enough  to  get  the  dirty, 


6o         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

but  important,  work  done.  It  is  lack  of  work  that  now 
makes  men  take  dirty  work  at  dirty  wages.  Under  So- 
cialism there  can  be  no  lack  of  work,  because  the  people 
.will  own  their  own  industrial  machinery  and  will  be  free 
to  use  it.  Furthermore,  machinery  is  now  doing  much 
of  the  dirty  work,  and,  as  time  goes  on,  will  do  more 
of  it. 

Socialists  are  often  asked  what  they  will  do  with  the 
man  who  will  not  work.  If  facetiously  inclined,  they 
usually  reply  that  one  thing  they  will  certainly  not  do 
with  him  is  to  make  him  a  millionaire.  But,  really,  the 
question  is  absurd.  What  do  the  opponents  of  Social- 
ism believe  a  Socialist  government  would  do  with  the 
man  who  would  not  work  ?  Do  they  believe  such  a  man 
would  be  given  a  hero  medal,  or  be  pensioned  for  life? 
What  is  there  to  do  with  such  a  man,  but  to  let  him 
starve?  I  mean  a  man  having  the  ability  to  work  and 
having  work  offered  to  him,  who  would  nevertheless  re- 
fuse to  work. 

But,  outside  the  ranks  of  criminals,  there  is  no  such 
man,  nor  will  there  ever  be.  Socialists  would  punish 
thieves  precisely  as  capitalists  punish  them,  except  for 
the  fact  that  Socialists  would  not  discriminate  in  favor 
of  the  biggest  thieves.  To  answer  the  question  in  a 
single  sentence.  Socialists  would  depend  upon  the  spurs 
afforded  by  the  desires  for  food,  clothing  and  shelter, 
to  keep  most  of  the  people  at  work,  and  the  odd  man 
who  might  choose  to  steal  would  be  treated  in  the  or- 
dinary way  —  imprisoned. 

But  the  question,  "  What  will  you  do  with  the  man 
who  will  not  work?  "  reveals  a  strange  belief  that  is  held 
by  those  who  do  not  hold  much  of  a  clutch  upon  the 
facts  of  life.  I  have  a  very  dear  old  aunt  who  believes 
from  the  bottom  of  her  honest  heart  that  tlie  great  mass 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  PREACH  DISCONTENT    6li 

of  unemployed  are  either  drunkards  or  loafers.  In  dis- 
cussing the  problem  of  the  unemployed  with  gentlemen 
who  are  living  upon  the  sunny  side  of  the  street,  they 
almost  invariably  fire  this  question,  "  Why  don't  those 
fellows  get  out  into  the  country  where  the  farmers  are 
crying  for  help  and  can't  get  any?  " 

I  was  brought  up  on  a  farm,  and  I  still  remember  that 
not  much  farming  was  done  in  winter.  The  great  de- 
mand for  extra  help  comes  in  mid-summer,  when  the 
crops  are  harvested.  During  six  or  eight  weeks  there 
is  a  demand  from  the  farms  for  more  help  than  they  can 
get.  But  what  man  who  has  a  family  in  the  tenements 
of  New  York  or  Chicago  can  afford  to  pay  his  railroad 
fare  to  Iowa,  Nebraska,  or  even  Ohio,  to  get  six  weeks' 
work  ? 

In  the  first  place,  they  have  not  the  money  with  which 
to  pay  their  fare.  These  men  live  from  hand  to  mouth 
in  the  city,  running  in  debt  during  the  week,  and  paying 
their  debt  with  the  wages  they  receive  Saturday  night. 
If  their  fares  were  advanced  by  the  farmers  who  wanted 
to  hire  them  they  would  have  little  or  nothing  left  from 
what  they  might  earn  on  the  farms,  and,  in  the  mean- 
time, their  families  in  the  cities  would  be  starving. 
Furthermore,  farm-work  is  a  trade  of  which  these  city 
workers  know  nothing.  They  could  learn  the  trade  of 
farming,  of  course,  but  they  could  not  learn  it  in  six 
weeks.  At  any  rate,  in  panic  times  there  are  more  than 
5,000,000  out  of  work  in  this  country,  and  in  no  con- 
ceivable circumstances  is  it  possible  that  any  considerable 
part  of  this  number  could  find  work  upon  the  farms  even 
six  weeks  of  the  year. 

The  fact  is  that  the  conditions  of  modern  industrial 
life  are  so  hard  that  an  increasing  number  of  unorgan- 
ized  workers  are  barely  able  to  live,  even  when  they 


62         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

work.  The  constantly  increasing  cost  of  living,  brought 
about  by  the  trusts  through  their  control  of  markets  and 
prices,  robs  these  men  to  the  limit,  and  they  have  no 
labor  unions  to  increase  their  wages.  Still,  they  do  not 
refuse  to  work,  even  for  a  bare,  miserable  living.  On 
the  contrary,  they  are  eager  to  work.  So  are  the  great 
bulk  of  the  unemployed  eager  to  work  for  a  miserable 
living. 

If,  under  these  horrible  conditions,  men  are  willing  to 
work,  what  reason  have  we  to  suppose  that  any  great 
number  would  refuse  to  work  under  a  Socialist  govern- 
ment for  compensation  that  would  enable  each  of  them 
to  live  as  well  as  tlie  $5,ooo-a-year  man  now  lives?  Gen- 
tlemen who  want  to  worry  about  this  may  worry  about 
it.  Socialists  are  not  worrying.  If,  under  Socialism,  a 
few  dyed-in-the-wool  loafers  should  appear,  Socialists 
are  prepared  to  deal  with  them.  They  do  not  propose  to 
cease  their  attempts  to  rid  the  world  of  poverty,  merely 
because  of  the  possibility  of  the  appearance  of  an  occa- 
sional loafer. 


CHAPTER  V 

HOW   THE    PEOPLE   MAY   ACQUIRE   THE   TRUSTS 

MOST  men  are  not  interested  in  private  profits,  be- 
cause they  don't  get  any.  Profits  are  only  for 
capitalists,  and  the  number  of  capitalists  bears  but  an 
insignificant  proportion  to  the  whole  number  of  people. 
Most  men  are  wage- workers,  of  one  sort  or  another,  or 
small  farmers. 

Yet  we  are  living  under  a  system  that  makes  private 
profits  the  basis  of  business.  If  profits  are  good,  busi- 
ness is  good.  If  profits  are  only  fair,  business  is  only 
fair.  If  profits  are  bad,  business  is  bad.  And,  when 
business  is  bad,  the  whole  country  suffers,  though  the 
country  has  the  men,  the  machinery  and  the  land  with 
which  business  might  be  made  good. 

Socialists  liken  the  present  business  edifice  to  an  in- 
verted pyramid  resting  upon  its  point  —  the  point  of 
private  profits.  Socialists  have  observed  that  the  steadi- 
est pyramids  do  not  rest  upon  their  points.  They  do 
not  believe  the  pyramids  of  Egypt  would  have  stood  as 
long  as  they  have  if  they  had  not  been  right  side  up. 
Socialists  therefore  propose  that  the  pyramid  of  busi- 
ness shall  be  turned  right  side  up.  They  believe  it  would 
stand  more  nearly  steady  if  placed  upon  the  broad  basis 
of  the  people's  needs  than  it  now  does  upon  the  pivot- 
point  of  private  profits. 

That  is  all  that  Socialists  mean  when  they  talk  about 
the  "revolutionary"  character  of  their  philosophy. 
l^liey  want  to  make  a  revolutionary  change  in  the  basis 

63 


'64         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

of  business.  They  want  goods  produced  solely  to  sat- 
isfy the  public  need  for  goods,  rather  than  to  satisfy  any 
man's  greed  for  profits.  They  do  not  see  how  business 
can  be  thus  -revolutionized,  so  long  as  a  few  men  own  all 
of  the  great  machinery  with  which  goods  are  produced. 
Socialists,  therefore,  propose  that  the  ownership  of  all 
the  great  machinery  shall  be  acquired  by  the  people,  by 
purchase,  and  thus  transferred  from  a  few  to  all. 

Those  who  are  not  in  favor  of  this  program  may  be 
divided  into  two  classes.  One  class,  desiring  to  cling 
to  tlie  private  profit  system,  is  opposed,  upon  principle, 
to  the  Socialist  program.  The  other  class,  while  eager 
enough,  perhaps,  to  be  rid  of  present  conditions,  does 
not  believe  the  Socialist  plan  is  practicable.  The  reason 
why  so  many  men  believe  the  Socialist  plan  is  imprac- 
tical is  because  so  many  men  do  not  know  what  the  So- 
cialist plan  is.  The  newspapers,  owned  as  they  are  by 
capitalists,  do  not  take  the  pains  to  tell  the  people  much 
about  the  plans  of  Socialism.  Even  so  great  a  trust 
lawyer  as  Samuel  Untermyer  of  New  York,  apparently 
did  not  know  much  about  the  plans  of  Socialism  until 
he  debated  Socialism  in  Carnegie  Hall  with  Morris  Hill- 
quit.  Mr.  Untermyer,  in  his  opening  statement,  made 
the  colossal  mistake  of  declaring  that  the  Socialists  had 
no  definite  plan  for  transferring  the  industries  of  the 
country  from  private  to  public  ownership;  that  no  one 
knew  whether  they  meant  to  take  over  all  industries,  or 
whether  they  meant  to  take  over  only  the  trusts,  while 
leaving  the  small  concerns  that  are  now  fighting  the 
trusts  to  compete  with  the  government.  In  short,  Mr. 
Untermyer  left  the  impression  that  in  the  matter  of  put- 
ting their  program  into  practice  the  Socialists  were  whirl- 
ing around  in  a  fog. 

Let  us  see  who  was  whirlins"  around  in  a  fog. 


PEOPLE  MAY.  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS  65 

Victor  L.  Berger,  the  Socialist  congressman  from  Mil- 
waukee, introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  a 
bill  embodying  the  following  features: 

The  government  shall  immediately  proceed  to  take 
over  the  ownership  of  all  the  trusts  that  control  more 
than  40  per  cent,  of  the  business  in  their  respective 
lines. 

The  price  to  be  paid  for  these  industries  shall  be 
fixed  by  a  commission  of  fifteen  experts,  whose  duty 
it  shall  be  to  determine  the  actual  cash  value  of  the 
physical  properties. 

Payment  for  the  properties  shall  be  proffered  in  the 
form  of  United  States  bonds,  bearing  2  per  cent,  in- 
terest payable  in  50  years,  and  a  sinking  fund  shall 
be  established  to  retire  the  bonds  at  maturity. 

In  the  event  of  the  refusal  of  any  trust  owner  or 
owners  to  sell  to  the  government  his  or  their  proper- 
ties at  the  price  fixed  by  the  commission  of  experts, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to 
use  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  gain  and 
hold  possession  of  the  properties. 

A  Bureau  of  Industries  is  hereby  created  within 
the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to  operate 
all  industries  owned  by  the  government. 

Mind  you,  tills  is  but  the  barest  skeleton  of  the  Berger 
bill.  The  bill  itself  may  have  no  sense  in  it.  But  that 
is  not  the  point.  Samuel  Untermyer,  great  trust-lawyer 
and  presumably  well-read  man,  said  that  the  Socialists 
had  no  definite  plan  for  taking  over  the  industries  of  the 
country.  He  made  this  statement  in  Carnegie  Hall  be- 
fore thousands  of  people.  And  there  was  not  one  word 
of  truth  in  it.  If  he  had  taken  the  slightest  pains  to  in- 
form himself,  he  might  easily  have  learned  that  the  So- 


66         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

cialists  have  an  exceedingly  definite  plan  for  taking  over 
the  ownership  of  the  nation's  industries. 

But  Mr.  Untermycr  took  no  pains  to  inform  himself. 
Ignorant  as  an  Eskimo  of  the  Socialist  program,  he  just 
Avent  to  Carnegie  Hall  and  talked.  What  he  did  not 
know,  he  guessed.  What  he  could  not  guess  right,  he 
guessed  wrong.  He  could  guess  almost  nothing  right. 
Mr.  Hillquit  made  him  look  ridiculous.  He  was  ridic- 
ulous. He  was  more  than  ridiculous.  He  was  an  object 
for  pity.  A  great  lawyer,  having  a  great  reputation  to 
sustain,  discussing  a  great  subject  of  which  he  had  only 
the  most  meager  knowledge! 

Mr.  Hillquit  riddled  him,  of  course,  but  he  did  not 
riddle  much  because,  speaking  Socialistically,  Mr.  Unter- 
myer  is  not  much.  But,  unfortunately,  only  the  5,000  or 
6,000  who  heard  the  debate  knew  that  Mr.  Untermyer 
had  been  riddled.  Millions  of  New  Yorkers  who  read 
the  capitalist  newspapers  the  next  morning  received  the 
impression  from  the  headlines  that  Untermyer  had  rid- 
dled not  only  Hillquit  but  Socialism.  "  Socialists  have 
no  definite  plans  for  doing  the  things  they  want  to  do  " 
was  the  parroted  charge.  The  charge  was  not  true,  but 
the  public  did  not  know  the  charge  was  not  true.  The 
capitalist  newspapers  would  not  let  the  public  know. 
The  newspapers  had  good  reasons  for  not  letting  the  pub- 
lic know.  The  newspapers  are  owned  or  backed  by  mil- 
lionaires who  are  interested  in  maintaining  present 
conditions.  Socialism  would  interfere  with  these  news- 
paper millionaires  as  much  as  it  would  interfere  with  any 
other  millionaires.  Yet  it  is  from  such  sources  that  the 
public  receives  most  of  its  information  with  regard  to 
Socialism.  It  is  because  of  this  fact  that  the  public 
knows  so  much  about  Socialism  that  is  not  so. 

It  emphatically  is  not  so  that  the  Socialists  have  no 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS     67 

definite  plan  for  taking  over  the  management  and  control 
of  the  industries  of  the  country.  They  know  precisely 
what  they  are  trying  to  do  and  how  they  are  trying  to 
do  it.  They  have  not  drafted  all  of  the  laws  that  would 
be  required  under  a  Socialist  republic  for  the  next  500 
years,  but  they  have  formulated  certain  general  princi- 
ples that,  once  established,  will  endure  for  centuries.  I 
shall  endeavor  to  make  these  general  principles  plain. 

Socialists  want  to  end  class  warfare.  They  want  to 
prevent  one  class  from  robbing  any  other  class.  They 
do  not  see  how  class  warfare  can  be  ended  so  long  as 
a  small  class  controls  the  means  of  life  of  the  great  class. 
The  means  of  life  is  the  machinery  and  materials  with 
which  men  work.  Socialists,  therefore,  purpose  that  the 
means  of  life  shall  be  owned  by  all  of  the  people,  through 
the  government. 

If  this  program  be  put  into  effect,  a  start  must  be  made 
somewhere.  Socialists  purpose  that  the  start  be  made 
with  the  trusts.  They  propose  that  the  start  be  made 
with  the  trusts  because  the  trusts  have  advanced  furthest 
along  the  road  of  evolution.  The  trusts  have  already 
sloughed  off  the  multitude  of  primitive,  competitive 
managers.  They  are  concentrated.  Only  the  slightest 
shift  will  be  necessary  to  concentrate  the  managements 
a  little  more  and  vest  them  in  the  government.  Besides, 
the  trusts  control  the  bulk  of  the  production  of  the  great 
necessaries  of  life.  Get  the  trusts  and  we  shall  have 
life.  We  shall  have  food.  We  shall  have  clothing. 
We  shall  have  shelter.  We  shall  have  all  of  these  things, 
because  we  shall  have  the  machinery  with  which  we  may 
make  all  of  these  things. 

Long  before  Congressman  Bcrgcr's  bill  was  drafted, 
the  cry  of  the  Socialists  was  "  Let  the  nation  own  the 
trusts."  Among  Socialists,  this  cry  was  as  insistent  and 
as  common  as  the  cry  of  "  Let  us  stand  pat "  was  in- 


68  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

sistent  and  common  among  the  Hanna  Republicans  of 
1896  and  1900.  That  Sociahst  cry  showed  where  the 
Sociahsts  planned  to  begin.  Congressman  Berger's  bill 
only  echoed  the  cry  and  made  it  more  definite.  The  So- 
cialist cry  was  "  Let  the  nation  own  the  trusts."  Con- 
gressman Berger's  bill  told  what  trusts  were,  within  the 
meaning  of  Socialist  demands,  and  how  to  get  them. 
Berger's  bill  declared  that  a  trust  should  be  construed  to 
mean  any  industry  or  combination  of  industries  that  con- 
trolled 40  per  cent,  or  more  of  the  national  output  of 
its  product.  And,  Berger's  bill  also  laid  down  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  easiest  way  to  acquire  the  trusts  is  to  buy 
them.  Moreover,  his  bill  also  sought  to  provide  the  gov- 
ernmental machinery  and  the  money  with  which  to 
do  it. 

Never  mind  whether  Berger's  bill  was  wise  or  foolish. 
Never  mind  whether  the  Socialist  program  is  wise  or 
foolish.  We  are  now  considering  the  charge  that  the 
Socialists  have  no  definite  program.  That  is  what  Mr. 
Untermyer  said.  That  is  what  a  thousand  others  say. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  they  are  all  wrong?  Who  can  doubt 
that  if  the  Berger  bill  were  enacted  into  law,  the  trusts 
could  and  would  be  taken  over?  The  Berger  bill  is 
plainer  than  any  tariff  bill  that  was  ever  written.  Any 
man  of  common  sense  can  understand  it.  No  man  can 
understand  a  tariff  law.  Yet  tariff  laws  are  adminis- 
tered. They  are  definite  enough  to  accomplish  what  the 
protected  manufacturers  really  want  accomplished. 
Even  those  who  oppose  high  tariff  laws  do  not  contend 
that  they  should  be  repealed  because  they  lack  definite- 
ness. 

The  simple  fact  is  that  the  Socialists  want  to  take  the 
trusts  first,  because  they  are  the  most  important  and  the 
best  adapted  to  immediate  ownership  by  the  people.     For 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS     69 

the  time  being',  small  competitive  manufacturers  would 
be  compelled  to  compete  with  the  government.  If  the 
Socialist  theory  of  production  is  a  fallacy,  the  small 
competitive  producers  would  demonstrate  it  by  providing 
better  working  conditions  for  their  employees  and  selling 
goods  more  cheaply  than  the  government.  In  that  event, 
Socialism  would  fall  of  its  own  weight  and  the  nation 
would  restore  present  conditions. 

If  the  Socialist  theory  of  production  is  not  a  fallacy, 
the  competitive  producers  would  be  driven  out  of  busi- 
ness and  sell  their  plants  to  the  government  for  what 
they  were  worth.  They  would  be  driven  out  of  business, 
because  they  could  not  afford  to  do  business  without  a 
profit.  They  could  get  no  profit  without  appropriating 
part  of  the  product  of  their  workers,  and  if  they  appro- 
priated part  of  the  product  of  their  workers,  the  work- 
ers would  shift  over  to  the  national  industries  where  no 
products  were  appropriated. 

In  short,  if  the  national  ownership  of  trusts  were  a 
success,  the  day  of  the  competitive  manufacturer  would 
be  short.  He  could  not  afford  to  do  business  with  a  com- 
petitor who  sought  no  profits.  And  this  is  precisely 
what  Socialists  believe  would  take  place.  They  believe 
the  national  ownership  of  the  trusts  would  be  quickly 
followed  by  the  national  ownership  of  every  industry 
that  is  now  owned  by  some  to  skim  a  profit  from  the 
labor  of  others. 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  peanut  stands  would 
be  owned  by  the  government.  It  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  farms  would  be  owned  by  the  government. 
The  Socialists  are  not  fanatics  over  the  mere  principle 
of  government  ownership.  They  appeal  to  the  prin- 
ciple only  to  accomplish  an  end.  The  end  is  the  de- 
struction of  the  power  of  some  to  rob  others.     If  there 


70         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

is  no  robbery,  tbcre  is  no  occasion  for  the  application 
of  the  principle.  The  ownership  of  a  peanut  stand  gives 
the  owner  no  power  to  rob  anybody.  A  man  who  tills 
his  own  farm  is  robbing  nobody.  Neither  the  owner- 
ship of  the  peanut  stand  nor  the  ownership  of  the  farm 
gives  the  owner  the  power  to  rob  anybody,  because 
neither  owner  profits  from  the  labor  of  an  employee. 
But  if  tenant  farming  should  ever  become  a  serious  evil 
in  this  country  —  and  it  is  increasing  all  the  while  —  the 
Socialists,  if  they  were  in  power,  would  take  over  the 
ownership  of  all  tenant  farm  lands.  They  would  take 
over  the  tenant  farms  for  the  same  reason  that  they  now 
w^ant  to  take  over  the  trusts  —  because  the  landlords 
were  using  the  powder  of  ownership  to  appropriate  part 
of  the  products  of  the  tenants. 

Let  this  do  for  the  critics  who  say  that  Socialists  have 
no  definite  program  for  taking  over  the  ownership  of 
the  nation's  industries.  There  is  another  set  of  critics 
who  say  that,  if  Socialists  should  ever  take  over  the 
industries,  they  could  not  run  them.  They  say  that  the 
change  from  private  to  public  ownership  would  bring 
chaos,  that  the  government,  as  a  manager  of  industry, 
would  break  down,  that  red  revolution  would  sweep  the 
world  and  that  civilization  would  probably  go  down  with 
a  crash. 

I  shall  pause  a  moment  to  comment  upon  the  lack  of 
humor  that  these  gentlemen  betray.  They  take  them- 
selves so  seriously.  If  they  were  called  upon  to  attend 
a  dog  beset  with  fleas,  they  would  doubtless  counsel  the 
dog  to  prize  the  fleas  as  it  prized  its  life. 

"  Don't  bite  off  one  of  those  fleas,  my  dear  dog,"  we 
can  hear  them  say.  "  You  don't  know  it,  but  they  are 
doing  you  good.  Each  flea-bite  increases  the  speed  with 
which  you  pursue  game.   .  If  fleas  were  not  biting  you 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS     71 

all  the  time,  you  might  become  so  comfortable  that  you 
would  lie  down  in  the  sun,  go  to  sleep,  forget  to  eat, 
and  thus  starve  to  death.  Remember,  the  fleas  are  your 
friends!" 

Of  course,  the  great  capitalists  who  are  opposing  So- 
cialism are  not  to  be  likened  to  fleas,  except  as  to  the 
facts  that  they  are  exceedingly  agile  and  are  working  at 
the  same  trade.  But  in  a  season  of  national  mourning 
over  the  high  cost  of  living,  is  it  not  unseemly  for  these 
gentlemen  to  provoke  us  to  laughter  by  telling  us  that,  if 
we  were  to  lose  them,  we  ourselves  should  be  lost  ?  We 
who  work  can  never  save  ourselves.  We  can  be  saved 
only  by  those  who  work  us. 

Let  us  get  down  to  brass  tacks.  If  the  Socialists  were 
to  gain  control  of  this  government  to-morrow,  probably 
the  first  thing  they  would  do  toward  carrying  out  their 
program  would  be  to  call  a  national  convention  to  draft 
a  twentieth  century  constitution  to  replace  our  present 
eighteenth  century  one.  The  convention  would  abolish 
the  senate,  vest  the  entire  legislative  power  in  the  house 
of  representatives,  destroy  tlie  United  States  Supreme 
Court's  usurped  power  to  declare  acts  of  congress  un- 
constitutional, make  all  judges  elective  by  the  people 
and  establish  the  initiative,  the  referendum  and  recall. 
Socialists  would  not  attempt  to  establish  Socialism  with- 
out first  clearing  the  ground  so  that  the  people  could  con- 
trol their  government  absolutely. 

The  work  of  the  convention  having  been  approved  by 
the  people,  perhaps  the  first  trust  that  would  be  taken 
over  would  be  the  railroad  trust.  It  would  be  a  big  job. 
It  would  be  so  big  a  job  that  no  other  similar  job  would 
be  undertaken  until  tiie  completion  of  the  railroad  job 
was  well  under  way,  and  the  railroad  job  might  require 
a  year  or  two.     I   mention   tin's    fact   to   show   that   it 


72         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

would  not  be  the  purpose  of  a  Socialist  administration 
to  rip  this  country  up  from  Maine  to  Southern  Cali- 
fornia within  twenty-four  hours  from  the  fourth  of 
March.  In  fact,  there  would  be  no  ripping  or  jarring, 
as  I  shall  soon  show.  Everything  would  proceed  in  an 
orderly,  lawful  manner. 

I  I  say  there  would  be  no  ripping  or  jarring,  because 
there  would  be  no  cessation  of  industry.  Let  us  sup- 
pose, for  instance,  that  the  ownership  and  control  of  the 
railroads  had  been  transferred  from  the  present  owners 
to  the  government.  What  would  happen?  Absolutely 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  jar.  What  happens  now  when 
one  group  of  capitalists  sell  a  railroad  to  another  group 
of  capitalists?  Nothing,  of  course.  The  new  owners 
tell  the  general  manager  to  keep  on  running  trains,  as 
usual,  or  if  they  install  a  new  general  manager,  they  tell 
him  to  keep  on  running  trains.  The  trainmen,  if  they 
did  not  read  the  newspapers,  would  not  know  the  road 
had  changed  hands. 

The  transition  from  private  to  public  ownership  would 
be  accomplished  precisely  as  smoothly.  The  only 
change  would  be  in  the  orders  that  a  Socialist  adminis- 
tration would  give  to  the  chief  executive  officer  of  the 
railroads.  That  order,  in  substance,  would  be :  "  Don't 
try  to  make  any  profits  out  of  the  railroads.  Run  them 
at  cost.  Give  the  men  more  wages  and  shorter  hours, 
and  give  the  public  the  best  possible  service  at  the  low- 
est possible  rate  and  with  the  least  possible  risk  to  hu- 
man life." 

If  you  can  manufacture  a  riot  out  of  such  ingredients, 
go  to  it.  If  you  can  figure  out  how  such  a  proceeding 
would  disrupt  civilization,  proceed  at  your  leisure. 

The  cards  are  all  down.  You  now  know  what  the 
Socialists  want  to  do.     Where  is  the  danger? 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS     73 

"  Oh,"  the  capitah'st  gentlemen  say,  "  but  you  Social- 
ists are  not  business  men,  and  business  men  are  required 
to  manage  industries.  A  Socialist  government  would 
therefore  fail." 

Mayor  Gaynor  expressed  much  the  same  thought  in  a 
statement  about  Socialism  that  he  prepared  for  the  New 
tYork  Times.  Mr,  Gaynor's  attitude  toward  Socialism  is 
tolerant  —  almost  sympathetic  —  yet  he  asked : 

"Who  would  run  your  Socialistic  government?  Where  would 
you  get  honest  and  competent  men?  Would  the  human  understand- 
ing and  capacity  be  larger  then  than  it  is  now?" 

Wherever  Socialism  is  discussed,  such  questions  are 
asked.  They  are  evidently  regarded  as  insuperable  ob- 
stacles to  Socialism.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  serve 
only  to  show  how  little  the  questioners  know  of  Social- 
ism. 

Socialists  do  not  purpose  to  establish  hatcheries  for 
the  breeding  by  special  creation,  of  a  class  of  super-men 
to  administer  government  and  manage  industry.  They 
will  depend  upon  the  regular  run  of  the  human  race  for 
material  with  which  to  work  out  their  ideas.  But  they 
will  approach  the  subjects  of  government  and  industry 
from  a  different  point  of  view.  The  capitalist's  concep- 
tion of  honest  and  efficient  government  is  that  sort  of 
government  that  will  best  protect  b.im  in  the  enjoyment 
of  the  unjust  advantages  that  he  has  over  the  rest  of  the. 
people.  The  capitalist's  conception  of  honest  and  effi- 
cient business  management  is  that  sort  of  business  man- 
agement that  will  yield  him  the  most  profits  upon  the 
least  capital.  The  Socialist's  conception  of  the  best  gov- 
ernment is  that  which  gives  no  man  an  advantage  over 
another,  while  giving  every  man  the  greatest  opportunity 
to  exercise  his  faculties,  together  with  the  greatest  de- 


74  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

gfree  of  personal  liberty  that  is  consistent  with  the  liberty 
of  everybody  else.  And,  the  Socialist's  conception  of 
honest  and  cfiicient  business  management  is  that  sort  of 
management  that  produces  the  most  product  under  the 
best  working  conditions  at  the  least  cost  and  distributes 
it  among  the  people  without  profit. 

In  answer  to  Mayor  Gaynor  and  others,  Socialists 
therefore  make  these  replies:  / 

Capitalists  are  now  able  to  get  honest  men  who  are 
competent  to  administer  the  government  in  the  interest 
of  the  capitalist  class.  Why,  then,  should  you  doubt 
that  Socialists  \vili  be  able  to  get  honest  men  who  will 
be  able  to  administer  the  government  in  the  interest  of 
the  working  class?  In  either  case,  it  is  simply  a  matter 
of  executing  the  orders  of  the  employer.  Capitalism's 
employees  obey  its  orders.  Socialism's  employees  will, 
for  the  same  reason,  obey  its  orders.  You  tell  your 
employees  to  maintain  the  advantage  that  the  few  have 
over  the  many,  and  they  obey  you.  We  shall  tell  our 
employees  to  destroy  the  advantage  that  the  few  have 
over  the  many.  We  believe  they  will  obey  us.  If  they 
do  not,  we  shall  recall  them.  That  is  more  than  you 
can  now  do. 

Mayor  Gaynor  and  others  also  ask  if  the  "  human  un- 
derstanding and  capacity  "  would  be  larger  under  Social- 
ism than  they  are  now.  Positively  not.  But  we  respect- 
fully beg  leave  to  suggest  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  un- 
derstanding or  capacity.  It  is  a  matter  of  purpose  and 
intention.  Men  "  understand  "  what  they  are  given  to 
understand.  If  a  man  is  told  to  understand  the  problem 
of  grinding  human  beings  down  to  push  dividends  up, 
he  devotes  his  mind  to  this  task  and  to  no  other.  If  the 
same  man  were  told  to  grind  dividends  down  to  the 
vanishing  point  ^nd  hoist  human  beings  high  and  dry 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS     75 

above  tlie  poverty  point,  he  would  probably  understand 
that,  too.  And,  so  far  as  capacity  is  concerned,  we  al- 
ready have  the  capacity  for  great  productive  effort.  We 
simply  are  not  permitted  to  exercise  enough  of  it  to  keep 
us  in  comfort  Socialism  would  not  increase  the  capacity 
of  the  human  mind,  but  it  would  give  the  nation  an  op- 
portunity to  exercise  the  capacity  it  has. 

To  simmer  the  whole  matter  into  a  few  words,  Social- 
ism would  endeavor  to  place  government  and  industry 
in  the  hands  of  men  who  would  consider  every  problem 
and  every  opportunity  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
working  class.  It  is  the  reverse  of  this  method  against 
which  Socialists  complain.  Capitalists  are  compelled  to 
consider  the  working  class  last  in  order  that  they  may 
consider  themselves  first.  The  interests  of  the  capitalist 
class  and  the  working  class,  instead  of  being  "  identical," 
are  hostile.  The  capitalist  class  seeks  a  maximum  of 
product  for  a  minimum  of  wages.  The  working  class 
seeks  a  maximum  of  wages  for  a  minimum  of  product. 
The  two  classes  are  at  war  with  each  other  for  the  pos- 
session of  the  values  that  the  working  class  creates. 

And,  since  capitalists  control  both  government  and 
industry,  it  is  but  natural  that  the  interests  of  capitalists 
should  be  considered  first  and  the  interests  of  working- 
men  last. 

A  little  thought  is  enough  to  dissipate  the  fear  that 
a  Socialist  government  would  fail,  "  because  Socialists 
are  not  business  men,  and  business  men  are  required  to 
manage  industry."  Let  us  first  inquire,  what  is  meant 
by  a  "  business  man  "  ?  Is  he  not.  first  and  foremost,  a 
man  who  is  expert  in  the  squeezing  out  of  profits?  Of 
course,  he  is.  If  he  can  produce  enough  profits  to  sat- 
isfy his  stockholders,  he  need  know  nothing  about  the 
mechanics  of  the  business  itself.     And,  so  long  as  busi- 


76         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

ness  is  conducted  upon  the  basis  of  private  profits,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  men  in  charge  of  it  must  be  "  business  " 
men  —  men  who  understand  the  business  of  extracting 
profits. 

But,  with  business  estabHshed  upon  a  basis  of  public 
usefuhiess,  with  no  thought  of  private  profits,  of  what 
use  would  be  such  a  business  man?  His  executive  and 
organizing  ability  would  be  of  the  greatest  value,  but 
his  ability  as  a  mere  profit-getter  would  be  of  no  value. 

For  purposes  of  illustration,  let  us  consider  Judge 
Gary,  the  chief  executive  official  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation.  Judge  Gary  probably  knows  about 
as  much  about  making  steel  as  you  do  about  making 
Stradivarius  violins.  He  was  educated  as  a  lawyer,  prac- 
tised law  and  was  graduated  to  the  bench.  He  knows  a 
steel  rail  from  a  gas  tank,  but,  to  save  his  life,  he  could 
not  make  either.  He  is  a  lawyer  —  plus.  A  lawyer 
with  a  business  man's  instinct  for  profits.  A  lawyer 
with  a  business  man's  instinct  for  organization  and  ad- 
ministration. 

Back  of  Judge  Gary  sits  a  cabinet  of  Wall  Street  di- 
rectors who,  in  a  general  way,  tell  him  what  to  do.  But, 
like  Judge  Gary,  these  Wall  street  directors  know  noth- 
ing about  the  making  of  steel.  They  are  expert  only  in 
the  making  of  profits. 

Now,  a  simple  old  person  who  had  just  dropped  down 
here  from  another  planet  might  tell  you  that  such  men 
could  not  possibly  manage  a  great  business  like  that  of 
the  steel  trust.  Such  a  simple  old  person  might  tell  you 
that,  under  the  management  of  such  men,  the  plants  of 
the  steel  trusts  would  be  as  likely  to  turn  out  bologna 
sausages  or  baled  hay  as  steel.  But  we  know,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  that,  under  the  management  of  such  men,  the 
steel  trust  turns  out  nothing  but  steel.     And  why  ?     Sim- 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS  'j'j 

ply  because,  below  these  managers  are  thousands  of 
highly  trained  men  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  wage- 
workers  who,  collectively,  know  all  that  is  known  about 
the  making  of  steel. 

Here,  then,  comes  this  crushing  question.  If  the  So- 
cialists were  to  gain  control  of  this  government,  and 
upon  behalf  of  the  government,  buy  out  the  steel  trust, 
what  would  prevent  the  Socialist  President  from  writing 
such  a  letter  as  this  to  the  chief  executive  officer  of  the 
steel  trust: 

"Dear  Judge  Gary:  Until  further  notice  stay  where  you  are  and 
do  as  you  have  been  doing,  except  as  to  these  particulars :  Instead 
of  consulting  with  J.  Pierpont  Morgan  and  your  Wall  Street  cabinet, 
consult  with  me  and  my  cabinet  Instead  of  making  steel  for  profit, 
make  it  solely  for  use.  It  will  not  be  necessary  for  you  to  make 
steel  rails  that  break  in  order  to  keep  steel  stock  from  breaking  on 
the  market.  Make  everything  as  good  as  you  can,  sell  everything 
you  make  at  cost,  increase  the  wages  of  your  workingmen  and 
shorten  their  hours.  Do  everything  you  can,  in  fact,  to  make  the 
lot  of  the  steel-worker  as  comfortable  as  may  be." 

Would  such  a  letter  create  a  riot?  Would  Judge 
Gary  indignantly  resign  and  the  workers  flee? 

Would  the  production  of  steel  be  interrupted  for  a 
single  moment? 

Yet,  in  no  more  violent  way  than  this  would  the  So- 
cialists take  over  the  ownership  and  control  of  any  in- 
dustry. The  men  now  in  charge  would  be  left  in  charge 
—  at  least  until  better  men  could  be  found  to  take  their 
places.  Probably,  here  and  there,  a  man  would  have  to 
be  changed.  Not  every  man  who  can  squeeze  out  profits 
is  good  for  anything  else.  But  the  men  who  could  for- 
get profits  and  make  good  in  usefulness  —  the  men  who 
could  look  at  their  problems  solely  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  public  —  such  men  would  be  let  alone. 
They  would  not  only  be  let  alone,  but  they  would  be 


78         TIIK  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

given  a  better  opportunity  than  they  now  have  to  make 
good.  Profits  ever  stand  in  the  way  of  making  good 
in  the  real  sense.  Steel  rails  that  break  and  kill  passen- 
gers are  not  made  poor  because  the  steel  trust  officials 
do  not  know  how  to  make  them  better.  They  are  made 
poor  because  it  would  decrease  profits  to  make  them  bet- 
ter. Every  intelligent  manager  of  industry  knows  of 
many  things  that  he  might  do  to  increase  the  worth  of 
his  product,  but  most  of  this  knowledge  goes  to  waste 
because  it  would  interfere  with  profits. 

Let  no  man  fear  that  Socialism,  if  tried,  would  crum- 
ple up  because  the  government  would  be  unable  to  find 
competent  managers  of  industry.  Every  industry  will 
continue  to  produce  men  who  are  competent  to  take 
charge  of  its  technical  work.  The  matter  of  executive 
heads  is  of  secondary  importance.  The  Postmaster. 
General  of  the  United  States,  who,  almost  invariably,  is 
a  mere  politician,  is  at  the  head  of  one  of  the  greatest 
enterprises  in  the  world,  yet  the  mails  go  on.  The  men 
who  sort  letters  must  know  their  business.  The  Post- 
master General  need  not  know  his.  It  would  be  better 
if  he  did,  of  course,  but  even  if  he  does  not  the  mails 
go  on.  So  much  more  important,  collectively,  are  the 
real  workers  of  the  world  than  any  man  who  figure- 
heads over  them. 

When  E.  H.  Harriman  died  the  Harriman  heirs  found 
a  man  to  head  the  Harriman  system  of  railroads.  The 
man  they  found  —  Judge  Lovett  —  is  not  even  a  rail- 
road man,  but  the  Harriman  lines  go  on.  The  Vander- 
bilts,  Goulds,  Rockefellers  and  Morgans  also  find  men 
to  manage  their  railroads  and  other  industries.  What 
these  capitalists  have  done,  the  President,  his  cabinet  and 
congress,  will  probably  have  little  difficulty  in  doing. 

Opponents  of   Socialism  make   ridiculous   statements 


PEOPLE  MAY  ACQUIRE  THE  TRUSTS     79 

about  the  slavery  that  they  declare  would  exist  if  the 
people,  through  the  government,  owned  and  operated 
their  own  industries.  The  workingman  is  told  that,  un- 
der Socialism,  he  would  be  ordered  about  from  place  to 
place  as  if  he  were  a  child. 

This  charge  is  no  more  ridiculous  than  another  charge 
that  is  sometimes  made,  by  which  it  is  represented  that, 
under  Socialism,  the  blacksmith  would  burst  into  an 
opera  house,  demand  the  job  of  leading  the  orchestra, 
and  start  a  revolution  if  he  were  denied  the  job.  The 
fact  is  that,  under  Socialism,  industry  would  proceed, 
so  far  as  these  matters  are  concerned,  in  much  the  same 
manner  that  it  now  proceeds.  The  workers  would  be 
free  to  apply  for  the  kinds  of  work  for  which  they  re- 
garded themselves  as  best  fitted.  So  far  as  the  neces- 
sities of  industry  would  permit,  the  applications  of  the 
workers  would  be  granted.  But,  in  the  long  run,  the 
workers  would  have  to  work  where  they  were  needed, 
precisely  as  they  now  have  to  work  where  they  are 
needed,  and,  then  as  now,  particular  tasks  would  be 
given  to  those  who  were  best  fitted  to  perform  them. 
Under  Socialism,  the  worker  would  have  to  apply  for 
work,  at  this  place  or  that  place,  precisely  as  he  does 
now.  The  only  difference  would  be  that  he  would  al- 
ways get  work  somewhere,  that  he  would  work  fewer 
hours,  under  better  conditions,  for  more  pay,  and,  that, 
as  a  voter,  he  would  have  a  voice  in  the  management  of 
all  industry.  | 

Such  are  the  replies  made  by  Socialists  to  the  chief 
objections  that  are  launched  against  Socialism.  There 
is  another  charge  —  not  an  objection  —  that  should  also 
be  considered.  It  is  the  charge  that  Socialists  arc  dream- 
ers, striving  to  establish  a  Utopia.  Nothing  could  be 
more  absurd.     Socialists  are  evolutionists.     Tlicy  do  not 


8o         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

believe  in  Utopias,  because  they  do  not  believe  tliere  is  or 
can  be  such  a  thing  as  the  last  word  in  human  progress. 
They  believe  the  world  will  always  continue  to  go  onward 
and  upward,  precisely  as  it  has  always  gone  onward  and 
upward.  Much  as  they  are  devoted  to  Socialism,  they 
have  not  the  slightest  belief  that  the  world  will  stop  with 
Socialism.  They  believe  Socialism  will  some  day  become 
as  outgrown  and  burdensome  as  capitalism  now  is,  and 
that,  when  that  day  comes,  Socialism  should  and  will  give 
way  to  something  better. 

Tlie  chief  contention  of  Socialists  is  that  Socialism  is 
the  next  step  in  civilization,  that  it  represents  a  great  ad- 
vance over  capitalism,  that  it  will  end  poverty  and  indus- 
trial depressions,  and  that  Socialism  must  come  unless 
civilization  is  to  go  backward. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE    "  PRIVATE    PROPERTY  "    BOGEY-MAN 

SOCIALISTS  want  the  people,  through  the  govern- 
ment, to  own  and  operate  the  country's  great 
industries.  In  making  this  proposal,  however,  they  al- 
ways specify  tliat  they  also  want  the  people  to  own  and 
operate  the  government. 

Upon  this  slight  basis  rests  the  charge  that  Socialists 
oppose  the  right  of  the  individual  to  own  private  prop- 
erty. Gentlemen  who  own  much  private  property  — 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars'  worth  —  energetically 
try  to  frighten  gentlemen  whose  holdings  of  private  prop- 
erty are  chiefly  confined  to  the  clothes  they  stand  in  and 
the  chairs  they  sit  in. 

"  Beware  of  those  Socialists,"  say  these  gentlemen, 
"  They  are  your  worst  enemies.  They  would  deprive 
you  of  the  right  to  own  private  property.  They  would 
have  everybody  own  everything  jointly,  thus  permitting 
nobody  to  own  anything  individually.  Look  out  for 
them." 

.  We  Socialists  say  to  you :  "  Look  out  for  the  gentle- 
men who  are  so  fearful  lest  you  shall  lose  the  right  to 
own  private  property.  If  you  will  observe  carefully, 
you  will  note  that  they  are  the  ones  who  own  practically 
all  of  th'"  private  property.  You  have  hopes,  perhaps, 
but  they  nave  the  property.  Your  hopes  do  not  increase. 
Their  property  does.  Besides,  we  have  no  desire  to  deny 
you  the  right  to  own  private  property.  On  the  contrary, 
we  want  to  make  your  right  worth   something.     It  is 

8i 


82  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

not  worth  anything  now,  because  you  don't  own  anything 
and  can't  own  anything.  You  are  kept  too  busy  making 
a  bare  living." 

Tlie  imagination  can  picture  no  more  seductive  subject 
than  the  right  to  own  private  property.  The  right  to 
own  private  properly  suggests  the  power  to  exercise  the 
right.  The  power  to  exercise  the  right  a  Httle  suggests 
the  power  to  exercise  it  much.  The  power  to  exercise  it 
much  suggests  the  power  to  put  the  world  at  one's  feet ; 
to  reach  out  and  get  this,  whatever  it  may  be;  to  go  there 
and  get  that,  wherever  it  may  be.  Nothing  that  is  of 
earth  or  on  earth  is  beyond  the  dreams  of  one  who  owns 
enough  private  property.  Therefore,  the  subject  may  be 
worth  a  little  more  than  ordinary  consideration. 

What,  then,  is  property?  Let  us  look  around  us. 
One  man  has  property  in  land.  So  far  as  the  eye  can 
see,  maybe,  the  laws  of  the  state  defend  him  in  his  power 
to  say:  "This  is  mine.  I  bought  it.  I  paid  for  it. 
No  one  can  take  it  from  me  without  my  leave.  No  one 
may  even  pick  a  flower  from  the  hillside,  or  a  berry  from 
a  bush  without  my  consent." 

Property  in  land  may  be  called  property  in  natural  re- 
sources —  property  in  things  that  man  did  not  make. 

Then  there  is  property  in  things  that  man  has  made. 
Property  in  food,  property  in  clothing,  property  in 
houses,  and  property  in  the  mills  and  machinery  with 
which  food,  clothing,  houses  and  all  other  manufactured 
articles  are  made. 

Now,  why  should  anyone  wish  a  property  right  in  any- 
thing? Why  should  anyone  wish  to  say  of  anvthing  on 
earth :  "  This  is  mine.  No  one  may  take  it  irom  me 
without  my  leave.  No  one  may  even  use  it  without  my 
leave  "  ? 

Only  that  he  may  fully  use  and  enjoy  it.     That  is  the 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY  "  BOGEY-MAN    83 

only  valid  reason  that  lies  behind  the  desire  to  own  any- 
thing. Some  things  cannot  be  fully  used  and  enjoyed 
unless  they  are  exclusively  within  the  control  of  those 
who  use  them.  A  home  into  which  the  world  was  at 
liberty  to  enter  would  be  no  home.  It  might  be  a  lodging 
house  or  a  hotel,  but  it  would  be  no  home.  Therefore, 
there  is  a  valid  reason  why  each  individual  should  ex- 
clusively control  the  house  in  which  he  lives.  Such  ex- 
clusive control  may  arise  from  private  ownership,  as  we 
now  understand  the  term,  or  it  may  arise  from  the  right, 
guaranteed  by  the  state,  to  exclusive  control  so  long  as 
its  use  is  desired;  but,  from  whatever  it  may  arise,  it 
should  exist. 

It  is  the  shame  of  the  present  civilization  that  it  does 
not  exist.  The  great  majority  of  human  beings  have  not 
the  exclusive  control  of  the  houses  in  which  they  live. 
Their  clutch  upon  their  habitations  is  of  the  flimsiest  sort. 
The  sickness  of  the  father  may  deprive  them  of  the 
power  to  pay  rent  and  thus  put  them  out.  The  ability  of 
some  other  man  to  pay  a  greater  rental  may  put  them  out. 
Any  one  of  many  incidents  may  deprive  them  of  their 
right  to  exclusive  control  of  their  domiciles. 

Exclusive  control  of  the  furnishings  of  a  home  is  also 
necessary  to  their  complete  enjoyment.  What  is  true  of 
house  furnishings  is  true  of  clothing.  Anything,  in  fact, 
that  is  exclusively  used  by  an  individual  cannot  be  com- 
pletely enjoyed  unless  it  is  exclusively  controlled  by  that 
individual. 

Wherein  lies  the  justice  of  permitting  one  individual 
to  own  that  which  he  does  not  use  and  cannot  use,  but 
which  some  other  individual  must  use?  Why  should 
Mr.  Morgan  and  his  associates  be  permitted  to  own  the 
machinery  with  which  the  steel  trust  workers  earn  their 
living?     Why  should  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  his  associates 


84  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

be  permitted  to  own  so  many  of  the  railroads  witli  which 
railroad  men  earn  their  living?  Why  should  one  man 
be  permitted  to  own  block  upon  block  of  tenements, 
wiiile  block  upon  block  of  tenement-dwellers  own  no 
homes  ? 

These  questions  cannot  be  answered  by  saying  that  the 
world  has  always  been  run  this  way.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  not  true.  Never,  during  all  the  years  of  the  world, 
until  less  than  a  century  ago,  did  a  few  men  own  the 
tools  with  which  all  other  men  work.  In  fact,  it  is  only 
within  the  last  40  years  that  such  ownership  has  divided 
the  population  into  a  small  master  class  and  a  vast  serv- 
ant class.  But  even  if  the  world  had  always  been  run  as 
it  is  running,  that,  in  itself,  would  not  make  it  right. 
And  anything  that  is  wrong  cannot  be  made  right  with- 
out changing  it. 

We  Socialists  are  determined  to  change  the  laws  re- 
lating to  private  property.  We  assert  that  the  present 
laws  are  wrong.  We  are  prepared  to  prove  that  they  are 
wrong.  We  are  eager  to  demonstrate  that  the  poverty 
of  the  masses  is  the  direct  result  of  the  ownership,  by  a 
few,  of  a  certain  kind  of  property  that  should  not  be  pri- 
vately owned.  We  refer,  of  course,  to  the  industrial  ma- 
chinery of  the  country,  which  is  owned  by  those  who  do 
not  use  it  and  used  by  those  who  do  not  own  it. 

Our  proposal,  therefore,  is  this:  We  say  that  all  prop- 
erty that  is  collectively  used  should  be  collectively  owned, 
and  that  all  property  that  is  individually  used  should  be 
individually  owned.  The  last  clause  should  help  out  the 
gentleman  who  is  afraid  that  Socialism  would  rob  him 
of  the  ownership  of  his  undershirt.  The  first  clause  will 
help  him  to  own  an  undershirt. 

Please  take  this  suggestion :  Distrust  any  man  who 
advises  you  to  distrust  Socialism  because  of  the  fear  that 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY  "  BOGEY-MAN    85 

it  would  destroy  the  individual's  right  to  own  property. 
Such  a  man  is  always  either  ignorant  upon  the  subject  of 
Socialism  or  crooked  upon  the  subject  of  capitalism. 
There  are  no  exceptions,  for  Socialism  does  not  mean 
what  he  says  it  means  and  would  not  do  what  he  says 
it  would  do. 

Socialism  would  give  such  a  meaning  to  the  individual 
right  to  own  property  as  it  has  never  had  in  all  the 
history  of  the  world.  Under  Socialism,  the  individual 
would  not  only  have  the  right  to  own  property,  but  he 
would  have  the  power  to  exercise  the  right.  He  would 
own  property.  If  Socialism  would  not  give  every  head 
of  a  family  the  power  exclusively  to  control  as  good  a 
house  as  the  $5,ooo-a-year  man  now  lives  in,  Socialists 
would  have  no  use  for  Socialism.  The  actual  owner- 
ship of  the  house  might  or  might  not  rest  with  the  indi- 
vidual. To  prevent  grafters  from  grabbing  houses,  it 
might  be  deemed  advisable  to  let  the  state  hold  the  title. 
But  the  state  would  protect  the  individual  in  the  right 
exclusively  to  control  the  house  as  long  as  he  wished  to 
live  in  it,  even  if  it  were  for  a  lifetime.  If  the  people  so 
desired,  the  state  might  even  go  further  and  give  the 
children,  after  the  death  of  their  parents,  the  same  right. 
But  no  Socialist  government  would  permit  a  landlord 
class  to  fatten  upon  a  homeless  class. 

Why?  Because  Socialists  believe  that  no  validity  un- 
derlies a  private  title  to  property  except  the  validity  that 
is  completed  by  the  use  of  property.  This  statement, 
like  any  other,  can  be  made  ridiculous  by  construing  it 
ridiculously.  Socialists  do  not  mean  by  this,  for  in- 
stance, that  if  a  man  should  take  his  family  to  the  coun- 
try for  the  summer  anybody  would  have  a  right  to  move 
into  his  house,  merely  because  he  had  temporarily  ceased 
to  use  it.     But  Socialists  do  mean  that  it  is  hostile  to  the 


86         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

interests  of  the  community  for  a  small  class  to  own  so 
much  that  they  can  never  use. 

Socialists  believe  that  the  needs  of  the  community  are 
so  great  that  all  of  the  resources  of  the  community  should 
be  available  to  the  community.  Therefore,  they  v^-ould 
require  occupancy,  or  use,  as  a  pre-requisite  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  a  title.  Not  that  if  a  man,  in  spring,  were  to  hang' 
up  his  winter  underclothing  for  the  summer,  any  neigh- 
bor gentleman  would  thereby  be  given  the  right  to  appro- 
priate the  same  —  nothing  of  the  kind.  This  statement 
with  regard  to  use,  like  all  other  statements  made  by 
Socialists,  must  be  construed  reasonably.  We  simply  lay 
down  the  principle  that  it  is  wrong  to  perpetuate  condi- 
tions under  which  a  few  are  enabled  to  grab  so  much 
more  than  they  can  use.  Such  grabbing  hurts.  What  a 
man  cannot  use  he  should  not  have.  He  thereby  prevents 
others  from  getting  what  they  need. 

Besides,  what  is  grabbing  but  a  bad  habit?  Mr. 
Rockefeller's  $900,000,000,  if  expended  exclusively  for 
bologna  sausages,  might  buy  enough  to  supply  him  for  a 
million  years.  If  expended  for  golf  balls,  he  might  be 
able  to  play  golf,  without  buying  a  new  ball,  until  he  had 
eaten  the  last  sausage.  If  expended  for  clothing,  he 
might  be  able  to  wear  a  new  suit,  every  fifteen  minutes, 
for  the  next  28,000,000  years.  But  what  good  do  all  of 
these  figures  do  Rockefeller?  His  capacity  for  consum- 
ing wealth  is  extremely  limited.  It  is  only  his  capacity 
for  appropriating  the  wealth  created  by  others  that  is 
great.  Every  time  Mr.  Rockefeller's  watch  ticks  $2 
drop  into  his  till  —  but  he  never  sees  them.  He  hardly 
knows  they  are  there.  He  has  to  hire  a  bookkeeper  to 
know  they  are  there.  So  far  as  certainties  are  concerned, 
Mr.  Rockefeller  knows  only  that  when  he  wants  bacon 
and  eggs,  with  a  little  hashed  brown  potatoes  on  the  side, 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY  "  BOGEY-MAN    87 

he  has  the  money  to  pay  for  them.  In  other  words,  the 
few  wants  of  his  sHght  physical  body  are  never  in  danger 
of  denial. 

Mr.  Rockefeller's  physical  wants  would  be  in  no  danger 
of  denial  if  he  were  worth  only  $50,000.  Why,  then, 
does  he  want  to  own  the  rest  of  his  $900,000,000  worth 
of  property?  Plainly,  it  is  only  because  he  is  a  victim 
of  a  bad  habit.  Some  men  want  money  because  of  the 
power  it  gives  them,  but  Rockefeller  has  never  seemed  to 
care  much  about  power.  He  simply  has  a  mania  for  ac- 
cumulation. The  more  he  gets,  the  more  he  can  get  — 
therefore,  he  always  wants  to  get  more. 

And,  what  does  Rockefeller  do  with  wealth,  after  he 
gets  it?  Why,  he  lets  us  use  it.  He  invests  it  in  rail- 
roads, or  steel  mills,  or  steamboats,  or  copper  mines,  or 
restaurants,  or  whatever  seems  likely  to  bring  him  more 
money.  He  does  not  use  any  of  these  properties  much. 
The  same  freight  train  that  brings  him  a  package  of 
breakfast  food  brings  carloads  of  kitchen  stoves  and  iron 
bedsteads  to  those  whose  watches  have  to  tick  all  day  to 
bring  in  $2.  But  the  point  is  that  while  Mr.  Rockefeller 
uses  his  properties  little  and  we  use  them  much,  he  is  con- 
tinuously charging  us  toll  for  their  use  and  investing  the 
toll  in  more  iron,  more  steel  or  more  copper.  If  he 
charged  us  no  toll,  we  should  have  reason  to  be  thankful 
to  him.  If  he  should  invest  the  toll  in  the  necessities  of 
life  and  dole  them  out  to  us,  we  should,  if  we  were  beg- 
gars, also  have  reason  to  be  thankful  to  him.  But  he 
invests  his  toll  in  more  iron,  more  steel  or  more  copper 
—  toll  that  the  men  who  made  it  need  to  put  blood  into 
their  bodies  and  clothing  on  their  families. 

That  is  all  that  the  private  ownership  of  property  does 
for  Mr.  Rockefeller  more  than  it  does  for  anybody  else. 
The  beefsteak  upon  his  plate  is  no  more  secure  from  out- 


88  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

side  attack  than  is  the  food  upon  the  plate  of  the  poorest 
laborer.  But  the  industrial  machinery  that  Mr.  Rocke- 
feller owns  enables  him  to  get,  every  time  his  watch  ticks, 
the  equivalent  of  $2  worth  of  food,  or  clothing,  or  any- 
thing else. 

We  stupid  people  who  permit  the  private  ownership  of 
industrial  machinery  should  be  exceedingly  thankful  to 
Mr.  Rockefeller  and  men  of  his  type.  To  these  gentle- 
men, are  thanks  especially  due  from  those  persons  who 
believe  that  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  repre- 
sents the  last  gasp  of  wisdom  and  should  not,  therefore, 
in  any  circumstances,  be  changed.  Under  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  this  country,  as  they  stand  to-day,  Mr. 
Rockefeller  and  his  associates  could  legally  starve  us  to 
death,  if  they  were  so  minded.  Each  of  them  could  go 
abroad,  deposit  $1,000,000  in  the  Bank  of  England,  then 
cable  instructions  to  close  down  every  industry  they  own, 
which  would  mean  every  industry  of  importance  in  the 
country,  including  the  railroads.  No  one  would  have  a 
legal  right  to  trespass  upon  their  premises,  and  their 
hoarded  wealth  would  be  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  live 
comfortably  abroad  to  the  end  of  their  days,  while  the 
people  of  America  were  starving  to  death. 

Of  course,  the  people  of  America  would  not  starve  to 
death.  Law  or  no  law,  the  people  of  America  would 
break  into  the  abandoned  properties  and  operate  them. 
Without  extended  delay,  they  would  change  the  law,  in- 
cluding the  federal  constitution,  to  justify  their  action. 
But  the  theoretical  possibility  of  such  abandonment  is 
sufficient  to  illustrate  the  absurdity  of  our  present  laws 
with  regard  to  the  ownership  of  private  property. 

When  the  constitution  was  adopted,  even  no  such  the- 
oretical possibility  existed.  It  is  true  that  we  were 
then  almost  exclusively  an  agricultural  people,  and  some 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY  "  BOGEY-MAN    89 

of  the  best  families  had  stolen  millions  of  acres  of  the 
most  available  land.  But  back  of  the  most  available  land 
were  untold  millions  of  acres  of  other  land  upon  which 
human  life  could  be  sustained  —  land  tliat  could  be  had 
for  the  taking  and  clearing.  The  factory  age  had  not 
dawned.  Every  home  was  its  own  factory,  in  which 
cloth  was  woven  and  clothing  was  made.  Aside  from 
the  stolen  land  which  was  privately  owned,  almost  noth- 
ing was  privately  owned  that  was  not  suitable  for  pri- 
vate ownership.  That  was  largely  due,  of  course,  to  the 
further  fact  that  there  was  not,  at  that  time,  much  wealth 
in  the  country. 

But,  viewed  from  any  angle,  the  unrestricted  private 
ownership  of  property  is  a  curse  to  the  people  and  always 
has  been.  If  it  were  not  a  curse,  in  the  sense  that  it  en- 
ables some  to  rob  others,  no  one  who  is  in  his  senses 
would  be  in  favor  of  it.  The  desire  to  use  property  is  a 
legitimate  reason  for  \vishing  to  own  it,  but  the  desire 
to  own  property  that  one  does  not  use  can  arise  from  no 
other  motive  than  a  purpose  to  use  such  ownership  as 
a  bludgeon  with  which  to  rob  the  users. 

Apply  this  test  and  it  will  be  found  never  to  fail.  The 
landlord  owns  land  because  he  wants  to  live  in  idleness 
from  the  fruits  of  those  who  till  the  land.  The  multi- 
millionaire owners  of  industrial  machinery  want  to  ow'n 
the  industrial  machinery  because  they  want  to  use  such 
ownership  to  appropriate  part  of  what  their  employees 
produce.  If  private  ownership  did  not  give  this  ad- 
vantage to  the  owners,  the  owners  would  not  care  to  own. 
If  it  does  give  this  advantage  to  the  owners  the  workers 
have  a  right  to  object.  Moreover,  the  workers  have  a 
right  to  insist  that  such  ownership  cease. 

It  is  not  enough  to  reply  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  own 
any  physical  property  that  he  can  buy.     Some  burglars 


90  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

have  enough  money  to  buy  dark  lanterns  and  "  jimmies," 
paying  for  the  same  in  perfectly  lawful  coin  of  the 
United  States.  But  merely  because  the  private  owner- 
ship of  burglars'  tools  is  not  for  the  good  of  the  people, 
we  have  laws  forbidding  such  ownership,  and  if  the  laws 
be  violated,  we  seize  and  confiscate  the  tools. 

Some  day,  the  fact  may  dawn  upon  us  that,  for  every 
dollar  taken  with  burglars'  tools,  a  million  dollars  is 
taken  —  quite  legally,  of  course  —  by  the  owners  of  in- 
dustrial tools. 

It  may  be  a  sore  blow,  of  course,  to  a  man  who  under 
capitalism,  has  never  been  able  to  own  a  cofifee  grinder, 
to  tell  him  that,  under  Socialism,  he  would  not  be  per- 
mitted to  own  a  steel  mill.  If  so,  let  the  blow  fall  at 
once.  He  might  as  well  know  the  worst  now,  as  later. 
But  if  there  be  those  who  are  interested  in  owning  homes, 
furniture,  clothing,  motorboats,  automobiles,  and  so 
forth,  let  them  be  interested  in  Socialism.  Socialism,  by 
no  means,  guarantees  that  every  laborer  shall  go  to  his 
work  in  a  six-cylinder  car,  while  his  wife  does  the  mar- 
keting in  a  limousine,  but  it  does  guarantee  that  Social- 
ism would  not  prevent  him  from  privately  owning  all 
such  property  that  he  could  earn. 

We  realize,  of  course,  that  this  is  but  a  small  bait  to 
hold  out  to  a  man  whom  capitalism  has  given  the  "  right  " 
to  own  the  earth.  Among  gentlemen  who  would  like 
to  own  the  earth,  perhaps  we  shall  therefore  make  little 
progress.  But  among  gentlemen  who  have  been  promised 
the  earth  and  are  getting  only  hell,  we  may  do  better. 
The  time  may  come  when  they  will  tire  of  piling  their 
bones  at  the  foot  of  the  precipice  of  private  property. 
The  time  may  come  when  they  will  realize  that  it  would 
be  no  more  absurd  to  have  private  undershirts  owned  by 
the  public  than  it  is  to  have  the  public's  industrial  ma- 


THE  "PRIVATE-PROPERTY"  BOGEY-MAN    91 

chinery  owned  by  private  interests.  Then  we  shall  have 
Socialism. 

"  And  everything  will  be  divided  up  equally,  all  around, 
and  in  five  years  the  same  persons  will  be  rich  who  are 
now  rich,  and  the  same  persons  who  are  now  poor  will  be 
poor  again." 

List  to  the  croaking  parrot  that  has  just  flown  into 
our  happy  home.  Whenever  and  wherever  there  is  a 
discussion  about  Socialism,  that  wise  old  bird  wheels  in 
and  declares  it  is  all  a  wicked  scheme  to  rob  the  rich  for 
the  benefit  of  the  poor,  and  that  in  no  event  could  it  long 
succeed.  Poor  old  feathered  imitation  of  a  human  in- 
tellect !  Brainless,  yet  not  without  a  voice,  it  talks  on 
and  on  and  on.  Bereft  of  its  feathers  and  its  voice,  it 
might  take  its  place  upon  a  hook  in  the  market  place  and 
eventually  work  its  way  into  some  careless  shopper's 
basket  as  a  perfectly  good  partridge,  or  diminutive  duck. 
Placed  upon  the  table  and  served  as  a  delicacy,  its  worth- 
lessness  would  soon  be  understood.  But  clad  as  nature 
clothed  it  and  harping  words  that  some  one  once  dropped 
into  its  ear,  its  voice  is  continuously  mistaken  for  the 
voice  of  wisdom  and  the  progress  of  the  world  is  com- 
manded to  halt. 

But  the  progress  of  the  world  does  not  halt.  Those 
who  can  think  without  inviting  excruciating  pain;  those 
who  can  reflect  without  bringing  on  a  stroke  of  apoplexy, 
are  not  compelled  to  think  much  or  to  reflect  much  to 
realize  that  nothing  the  bird  says  about  "  dividing  up  "  is 
so.  Who  divided  up  the  wealth  that  is  represented  in  the 
public  buildings  in  Washington?  What  part  of  the 
White  House,  pray,  do  you  own?  Do  you  own  the  south 
veranda,  or  do  you  own  the  President's  bed?  Maybe  it 
is  the  gilded  lady  upon  the  dome  of  the  Capitol  who  calls 
you  "  papa  "  or  "  mamma."     li  not,  the  wealth  repre- 


92  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

scntcd  in  the  public  buildings  in  Washington  has  not  been 
"  divided  up,"  for  you  have  not  been  given  your  share. 

Under  Socialism,  the  wealth  of  the  nation  would  no 
more  be  divided  up  than  the  wealth  invested  in  the  Amer- 
ican navy  is  divided  up  now.  The  industrial  wealth  of 
the  community,  owned  in  common  by  the  members  of 
the  community,  would  be  at  the  service  of  the  community. 
It  would  no  more  be  at  the  service  of  an  individual, 
exclusive  of  any  other  or  all  other  individuals,  than  the 
postal  department  is  now  at  the  service  of  an  individual 
to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  individual.  Nor  would 
any  man  or  small  set  of  men  ever  have  a  greater  oppor- 
tunity to  regain  possession  of  the  nation's  industrial 
wealth  than  any  man  or  small  set  of  men  now  have  to  ac- 
quire private  ownership  of  the  Capitol  at  Washington. 
Any  man  may  walk  into  the  Capitol  with  all  the  freedom 
that  he  might  feel  if  it  were  his  own.  But  let  any  man 
try  to  sell  off  a  wing  as  a  lodging  house  and  the  Capitol 
police  would  do  their  duty.  Let  Socialists  once  national- 
ize the  nation's  industries  and  they  will  cheerfully  agree 
to  lay  their  heads  on  the  block  if  individuals  ever  recover 
possession  of  them. 

Gentlemen  who  believe  otherwise  forget  that  under 
Socialism  there  would  no  longer  be  the  means  by  which  a 
few  pile  up  great  fortunes  at  the  expense  of  the  many. 
The  private  ownership  of  property  that  is  collectively 
used  is  the  means  by  which  such  fortunes  are  now  ac- 
cumulated. With  the  means  gone,  how  could  the  for- 
tunes reappear? 

We  Socialists  are  also  often  chided  for  what  our  op- 
ponents are  pleased  to  call  our  "  gross  materialism." 
Gentle  folk  like  the  Morgans,  the  Guggenheims,  the 
Ryans,  the  Havemeyers  and  others  often  grieve  because 
our  vision  seems  to  comprehend  nothing  but  bread  and 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY  "  BOGEY-MAN    93 

butter,  clothing  and  furniture,  houses  and  lots  and  pen- 
sions for  the  aged. 

Their  grief  is  perhaps  natural.  We  talk  much  about 
those  things.  We  are  frankly  committed  to  the  task  of 
removing  poverty  from  the  world.  Material  things  are 
required  to  remove  poverty.  When  poverty  goes,  of 
course,  a  lot  will  go  that  is  not  material.  All  of  the  un- 
happiness  that  is  caused  by  poverty  and  the  fear  Of  pov- 
erty will  go.  All  of  the  ignorance  that  is  caused  by 
poverty  will  go.  All  of  the  crimes  that  are  caused  by 
ignorance  and  poverty  will  go.  And  much  of  the  vice 
.will  go. 

Much  of  the  vice?  Did  you  ever  consider  how  much 
vice  would  go  if  capitalism  were  to  go?  Did  you  ever 
realize  to  what  extent  vice  is  fostered  by  the  profit  sys- 
tem to  which  Socialism  is  opposed?  No?  Then  read 
what  Wirt  W.  Hallman,  of  Chicago,  said  before  the 
American  Society  of  Sanitary  and  Moral  Prophylaxis. 
Here  it  is: 

"  If  any  city  will  take  the  profit  out  of  vice,  it  will  immediately 
reduce  the  volume  of  vice  at  least  50  per  cent.  If,  in  addition,  it  will 
make  vice  dangerous  to  men  as  well  as  women,  to  patrons,  property- 
owners  and  business  men  as  well  as  to  dive-keepers  and  women 
street-walkers,  it  will  reduce  vice  75  per  cent,  or  more,  and  will 
reduce  the  wreckage  of  health  and  morals  in  much  the  same  propor- 
tion." 

Socialism  will  not  only  take  the  profit  out  of  vice,  but 
it  will  take  it  out  of  everything.  By  enfranchising 
woman  and  making  her  economically  independent,  no 
woman  would  be  compelled  to  sell  herself  to  keep  herself. 
Socialism,  in  this  and  other  enumerated  respects,  is  there- 
fore not  particularly  materialistic. 

But  what  if  it  were  wholly  materialistic?  What  if  its 
advocates  thought  of  teaching  nothing  to  the  world  but 
the  best  means  of  supplying  itself  with  bread  and  butler, 


94  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

boots  and  shoes,  caps  and  clothing,  houses  and  lots?  Do 
you  now  require  your  grocer  to  teach  you  ethics?  Does 
your  haberdasher  supply  you  with  spiritual  food  as  well 
as  neckties?  If  your  house  were  burning,  would  you 
refuse  the  assistance  of  the  fire  department  merely 
because  the  fire  department  is  exclusively  material- 
istic? 

The  charge  of  "  gross  materialism  "  is  but  more  sand 
thrown  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  could  not  be  so  easily 
robbed  if  they  could  see  Socialism.  Socialists  behold  a 
world  that  is  and  always  has  been  poverty-stricken. 
They  say  that  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
world  it  is  now  possible  to  remove  poverty.  And  those 
gentlemen  who  might  have  to  go  to  work  if  poverty  were 
removed  rebuke  the  Socialists  because  they  do  not  sing 
psalms  while  talking  about  the  bread  and  butter  question. 
Assuredly,  no  flattery  is  thereby  intended,  but  indeed 
what  flattery  this  is.  By  inference,  they  tell  the  world 
that  we  are  super-men.  We  could  tell  the  world  all  it 
needs  to  know  if  it  were  not  for  the  cussedness  that 
causes  us  to  harp  on  bread  and  butter. 

The  real  cause  of  such  complaint  is,  of  course,  not  that 
we  are  teaching  the  world  too  little,  but  too  much.  We 
could  preach  ethics  and  religion  until  the  cows  came 
home  and  not  arouse  a  croaker.  We  could  preach  noth- 
ing until  the  cows  dropped  dead  and  still  there  would  be 
silence.  But  when  we  proclaim  the  right  of  the  indi- 
vidual, not  only  to  work,  but  to  possess  all  he  creates,  the 
gentlemen  who  create  nothing  and  own  everything  fire 
at  us  every  brick  within  reach. 

Mr.  John  C.  Spooner,  once  a  United  States  Senator 
from  Wisconsin,  but,  happily,  no  longer  such,  feels  par- 
ticularly aggrieved  at  the  Socialist  proposals  commonly 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY  "  BOGEY-MAN    95 

known  as  the  initiative,  the  referendum  and  the  recall. 
To  engraft  these  measures  upon  our  federal  and  state 
constitutions  would,  he  says,  be  an  attempt  to  bring  about 
a  "  pure  democracy,"  meaning  thereby  a  community  the 
members  of  which  directly  governed  themselves.  A 
"  pure  democracy,"  according  to  Mr,  Spooner,  was  never 
made  to  work  on  a  great  scale  and  cannot  be  made  to 
work  to-day. 

Mr.  Spooner,  who,  in  and  out  of  office,  has  always 
served  the  rich,  is  evidently  still  true  to  his  allegiance. 
If  Mr.  Spooner  does  not  know  that  no  Socialist,  nor  any 
other  person  fit  to  be  out  of  an  idiot  asylum,  has  ever 
even  suggested  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
be  converted  into  a  pure  democracy,  the  sum  of  his 
knowledge  is  even  less  than  the  sum  of  his  public  services 
up  to  date.  Socialists,  and  those  who  have  followed  us 
in  advocating  the  initiative,  the  referendum  and  the  re- 
call merely  want  to  give  the  people  power  to  do  certain 
things  for  themselves,  provided  their  elected  representa- 
tives refuse  to  do  them. 

We  do  not  propose  to  do  away  with  representative 
government.  We  do  not  propose  to  disband  a  single 
legislative  body.  But  we  do  propose  to  make  every 
elected  official  represent  us.  We  do  not  care  whether  he 
be  a  judge,  a  congressman  or  a  President.  He  must 
represent  us.  But  merely  because  we  are  determined 
these  gentlemen  shall  represent  us,  other  gentlemen  like 
Mr.  Spooner  seek  to  make  the  people  believe  we  are  try- 
ing to  go  back  to  the  old  New  England  town  meeting 
days  and  collect  90,000,0000  people  on  the  prairie  some- 
w'here  every  time  a  law  is  to  be  passed  or  a  fourth-class 
postmaster  appointed.  The  most  charitable  construction 
that  can  be  placed  upon  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Spooner  and 


96         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

men  of  his  kind  is  tliat  they  are  infinitely  more  foolisH 
tiian  they  beheve  Sociahsts  to  be. 

Another  point  of  view  is  suggested  by  a  Denver  gen- 
tleman whose  letter  follows : 

"In  one  of  your  articles  on  Socialism,  you  tell  liow  Socialists 
would  govern  —  changes  they  would  make  in  the  constituti'on,  and 
so  forth.  I  should  like  to  ask  what  you  Socialists,  or  your  ancestors 
had  to  do  with  making  our  present  form  of  government?  In  other 
words,  what  percentage  of  the  Socialists  have  three  generations  of 
American-born  ancestors?  Socialist  leaders,  in  particular?  A  very 
small  percentage,  I  venture  to  say.  Socialism  is  a  result  of  im- 
migration. Americans  still  have  faith  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States." 

When  all  other  attacks  fail,  the  charge  is  gravely 
made  that  "  Socialism  is  un-American  "  and,  therefore,  a 
"  result  of  immigration." 

Does  it  never  occur  to  these  gentlemen  that  the  United 
States  are  also  the  "  result  of  immigration  "  ?  That  the 
English  language,  as  we  speak  it  here,  is  the  result  of  im- 
migration? 

Would  these  gentlemen  have  us  reject  everything  that 
comes  from  Europe?  If  so,  why  do  they  not  reject  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  which,  though  written  by 
Thomas  Jefferson,  yet  breathes  the  spirit  of  Rousseau 
and  Voltaire,  at  whose  feet  he  was  proud  to  sit?  Why 
do  they  not  reject  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  is  heavily  saturated  with  the  political  principles  of 
the  English?  Why  do  they  not  reject  the  English  com- 
mon law,  which  assuredly  is  not  American?  Why  do 
they  not  reject  the  multiplication  table,  the  works  of 
Shakespeare  and  the  wireless  telegraph? 

Why  don't  they?  Because  they  are  not  fools.  They 
are  foolish,  let  us  hope,  only  when  they  are  talking  about 
Socialism.  On  this  subject,  their  brains  curdle.  They 
do  not  ask  whether  the  principles  upon  which  it  is  based 


THE  "  PRIVATE-PROPERTY.  "  BOGEY-MAN    97 

are  true.  Truth  is  not  the  test.  The  test  is  the  place 
where  the  principles  were  first  proclaimed.  If  it  could 
be  proved  that  they  were  first  proclaimed  at  Muncie,  In- 
diana, by  a  gentleman  who  was  born  there  immediately 
after  the  landing  of  Columbus  —  then  we  might  expect 
these  patriots  to  become  Socialists  even  if  Socialism  had 
not  a  leg  to  stand  upon.  But  since  Europeans  chanced 
to  hit  upon  Socialism  before  we  did,  precisely  as  they 
chanced  to  hit  upon  many  another  good  thing  before  we 
did,  these  gentlemen  do  not  want  Socialism,  even  though 
it  be  true. 

Well,  let  them  reject  it.  Let  them  reject  the  sun,  the 
moon  and  the  stars,  if  they  want  to.  None  of  them  was 
made  in  America.  Let  them  reject  the  Mississippi 
River  because  it  was  discovered  by  De  Soto,  a  foreigner. 
Let  them  reject  the  Pacific  Ocean  because  it  was  discov- 
ered by  Balboa,  another  foreigner.  The  march  of  the 
sun  and  planets  will  probably  not  be  seriously  disturbed, 
even  if  some  gentlemen  do  reject  them.  Possibly  the 
Mississippi  River  may  flow  on.  Certainly,  the  Socialist 
party  in  America  will  not  disband.     It's  busy. 

I  cannot  tell  my  correspondent  what  percentage  of  So- 
cialists have  three  generations  of  ancestors  who  were 
born  in  America.  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  care.  I  do 
not  know  why  he  should  care.  I  know  some  Socialists 
who  have  fifteen  generations  of  ancestors  who  were  born 
in  America.  I  have  seen  some  Socialists  when  they  had 
been  in  this  country  only  fifteen  minutes.  So  far  as  I 
could  discover,  they  were  precisely  like  the  Socialists  who 
had  lived  in  this  country,  in  person  or  by  proxy,  for  300 
years.  They  all  believed  that  poverty  was  unnecessary 
and  that  Socialism  would  remove  it. 

Either  that  belief  is  true,  or  it  isn't.  Whence  it 
sprang  or  by  whom  it  is  expressed  makes  no  difference 


98         THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

with  its  truth  or  falsity.  Yet,  men  who  think  they  can 
tliink,  write  or  speak  as  this  gentleman  has  written. 
They  mean  well,  of  course,  but  they  are  suffering  from 
ingrowing  Americanism.  They  are  turning  their  eyes 
upon  themselves  and  their  backs  upon  the  world.  If 
America  ever  reaches  the  point  where  it  will  reject  truth, 
simply  because  it  comes  from  abroad,  while  accepting 
error  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it  is  made  at  home, 
America  will  not  be  worth  bothering  about. 


CHAPTER  VIT 

SOCIALISM    THE    LONE    FOE    OF    WAR 

ASK  the  first  man  you  meet  if  he  is  in  favor  of  war 
and  he  will  tell  you  he  is  not.  Mr.  Wilson  is  op- 
posed to  war.  The  Czar  of  Russia  is  opposed  to  war. 
The  King  of  Italy  is  opposed  to  war.  The  Sultan  of 
Turkey  is  opposed  to  war.  The  King  of  England  and 
the  German  Emperor  are  opposed  to  war.  Every  king 
and  emperor  in  the  world  is  opposed  to  war.  Mr, 
Roosevelt,  Mr.  Bryan,  Mr.  Morgan,  Mr.  Carnegie,  Mr, 
Taft  —  everybody,  everywhere,  is  opposed  to  war. 

Yet,  Mr.  Taft,  not  so  long  ago,  flung  an  army  in  the 
face  of  Mexico,  and  dispatched  powerful  warships  to  the 
coast  of  Cuba.  The  King  of  Italy,  not  so  long  ago, 
attacked,  by  land  and  sea,  the  people  of  Turkey.  Mr, 
Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Bryan,  a  little  longer  ago,  enlisted  in 
the  war  against  Spain.  Mr.  Morgan,  only  a  few  years 
ago,  helped  to  furnish  the  sinews  of  war  with  which 
Japan  fought  Russia.  At  this  moment,  the  King  of 
England  and  the  German  Emperor  are  threatening  their 
respective  nations  with  bankruptcy  in  order  to  augment 
their  enormous  machinery  for  the  slaying  of  men.  And,j 
Mr.  Carnegie,  having  grown  rich,  in  part  by  the  manu- 
facture of  armor-plate  for  warships,  is  now  using  some 
of  his  money  to  further  a  peace-movement  that  brings  no 
peace. 

Plainly,  here  is  somctliing  mystifying  —  a  world  that 
wants  to  stop  fighting  and  cannot.  Why  cannot  it  stop 
fighting?     Mr.   Wilson  cannot  tell  you.     Mr.   Alorgau 

99 


loo        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

will  not  tell  yon.  Mr.  Roosevelt  lias  not  told  you.  Mr. 
Bryan  and  Mr.  Carnegie  seem  not  to  know.  No  one 
who  should  know  seems  to  know.  Yet,  they  must  know. 
Common  sense  says  so.  The  men  who  make  wars  know 
why  they  make  them.  Wars  do  not  happen  —  they  are 
made.  Somebody  says :  "  Bring  out  the  guns."  Some- 
body says :  "  Begin  shooting."  Somebody  knows  what 
the  shooting  is  about.  i 

What  is  it  about?  Be  careful,  now.  Don't  answer 
too  quickly.  Don't  say  "  the  flag  "  has  been  insulted. 
Don't  say  "  the  national  honor "  has  been  impugned. 
These  are  old  reasons,  but  they  may  not  be  true  reasons. 
We  Socialists  are  willing  to  stake  everything  on  the 
statement  that  they  are  not  true  reasons.  If  we  are 
right,  we  are  worth  listening  to.  War  is  hell.  During 
the  132  years  that  we  have  been  a  nation,  we  have  had 
war  hell  at  average  intervals  of  22  years.  We  are  al- 
ready preparing  for  our  next  war.  We  are  arming  to 
the  teeth.  It  may  not  last  so  long  as  the  Civil  War,  but 
it  will  be  bloodier.  We  have  all  of  the  most  improved 
machinery  for  making  it  bloodier. 

On  the  sea  we  are  armed  as  Farragut  never  was 
armed.  Any  of  our  dreadnoughts  could  sink  all  of  the 
ships,  for  which  and  against  which,  Farragut  ever 
fought.  And,  on  land,  we  are  armed  as  Grant  never  was 
armed.  Grant  drummed  out  his  victories  with  muzzle- 
loading  rifles.  No  rifle  could  be  fired  rapidly.  No  bul- 
let could  kill  more  than  one  man,  nor  any  man  unless 
that  man  were  near.  But  the  modern  rifle  can  be  fired 
25  times  a  minute,  and  it  will  kill  at  four  miles.  More 
than  that,  a  single  bullet  from  a  modern  rifle  will  kill 
every  man  in  its  path.  It  will  shoot  through  60  inches 
of  pine.  It  will  string  men  like  a  needle  stringing  beads. 
It  will  literally  make  a  sieve  of  a  soldier.     Seventy  bullet 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR     loi 

holes  and  more  were  found  in  the  body  of  many  a  man 
who  fell  on  the  plains  of  ]\Ianchuria. 

Toward  such  a  war  —  or  worse  —  we  are  speeding. 
Indeed,  it  will  be  hell.  But  it  will  not  be  hell  for  the  men 
who  make  it.  It  will  be  hell  for  the  men  who  fight  it. 
The  men  who  make  it  will  stay  at  home.  Their  blood 
will  drench  no  battlefield.  Their  bones  will  lie  in  the 
mire  with  no  sunken  ship.  But  the  blood  of  the  workers 
will  drench  every  battlefield,  and  their  skeletons  will 
march  with  the  tides  on  the  floor  of  the  sea. 

Good  Christian  gentlemen  who  abhor  w^ar  hold  out  no 
hope  that  war  will  soon  .aase.  Good  Christian  gentle- 
men who  abhor  war  pretend  not  to  know  why,  in  a  world 
that  is  weary  of  war,  war  still  persists.  Or,  if  they  do 
pretend  to  know,  they  account  for  the  persistence  of 
war  by  slandering  the  human  race.  They  say  the  race 
is  bad.  Its  brain  is  full  of  greed.  Its  heart  is  full  of 
murder. 

The  mind  of  the  race  is  not,  nor  ever  has  been  filled 
with  the  greed  that  kills. 

The  heart  of  the  race  is  not,  nor  ever  has  been,  filled 
with  the  black  blood  of  murder. 

It  is  only  a  few  whose  minds  and  hearts  have  been 
thus  poisoned  by  greed  for  gain  or  lust  for  power. 
Probably  wc  should  all  have  been  thus  poisoned  if  we 
had  been  similarly  circumstanced  —  if  we  had  been  great 
capitalists.  But  most  of  us,  lacking  the  capitalist's  in- 
stinct for  profits,  never  chanced  to  see  the  easy  loot  and 
the  waiting  dagger  lying  side  by  side.  The  gentlemen 
who  have  seen  them  have  made  our  wars.  And  the  gen- 
tlemen who  do  see  them  are  making  our  wars  to-day  and 
preparing  others  for  the  future. 

,We  Socialists  make  this  charge  flatly.  We  smear  the 
monstrous  crime  of  war  over  the  face  of  the  cai)italist 


I02        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

class.  We  mince  no  words.  We  say  lo  the  capitalist 
class : 

"  Your  pockets  are  filled  with  gold,  but  your  hands  are 
covered  with  blood.  You  kill  men  to  get  money.  You 
don't  kill  them,  yourselves.  As  a  class,  you  are  too  care- 
ful of  your  sleek  bodies.  You  might  be  killed  if  you 
were  less  careful.     But  you  cause  other  men  to  kill, 

"  And  you  do  it  in  the  meanest  way.  You  do  it  by 
appealing  to  their  patriotism. 

"  You  say :  '  It  is  sweet  to  die  for  one's  country.* 

"  You  don't  dare  say :  '  It  is  sweet  to  die  for  Have- 
meyer,'  as  many  Americans  died  during  the  Sugar  Trust 
war  to  '  free  Cuba.' 

"  You  don't  say :  '  It  is  sweet  to  die  for  Guggenheim 
or  Morgan,'  as  many  Americans  would  have  died  if 
Taft's  army  had  crossed  the  Rio  Grande. 

"  You  don't  say :  '  It  is  sweet  to  die  for  the  Tobacco 
and  other  trusts,'  as  many  Americans  died  during  the  war 
with  the  Philippines. 

"  You  don't  dare  say  any  of  these  things,  because  you 
know,  if  you  did,  you  would  not  get  a  recruit.  You 
know  you  would  be  more  likely  to  get  the  boot." 

We  Socialists,  who  make  these  charges,  know  they  are 
serious.  They  are  as  serious  as  we  know  how  to  make 
them.  If  they  lack  any  of  the  seriousness  they  should 
have,  it  is  because  we  lack  some  of  the  vocabulary  we 
should  have.  The  facts  upon  which  the  charges  are 
made  are  serious  enough  to  justify  the  full  use  of  any 
vocabulary  ever  made.  The  facts  are  the  facts  of 
colossal  murder  for  gain.  And  they  are  as  old  as  his- 
tory. 

The  small  rich  class  that  lives  in  luxury  from  the 
labor  of  the  great  poor  class  has  a  reason  for  clinging 
to  the  control  of  government.     That  reason  is  not  far 


SOCIALIS^I  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR     103 

to  seek.  Without  the  control  of  government,  the  small, 
rich  class  would  not  be  rich.  Government,  in  the  hands 
of  the  rich,  is  a  sort  of  two-handed  claw  with  which 
golden  chestnuts  are  pulled  out  of  the  fire.  One  claw 
is  the  governmental  power  to  make  and  enforce  laws. 
The  other  claw  is  the  power  to  grab  by  force  that  which 
cannot  be  grabbed  by  laws. 

One  nation  cannot  make  laws  for  another  nation. 
But  the  capitalists  of  one  nation  may  possess  property 
that  is  wanted  by  the  capitalists  of  another  nation.  Or 
the  capitalists  of  one  nation  may  see  a  great  opportu- 
nity for  personal  profit  in  transferring  to  their  own 
nation  the  sovereignty  that  another  nation  holds  over  a 
certain  territory.  That  was  why  Great  Britain  made 
war  against  the  Boers.  Certain  rich  English  gentlemen 
believed  they  could  make  more  money  if  the  British  flag 
waved  over  the  diamond  and  gold  fields  of  the  Trans- 
vaal. For  no  more  nearly  valid  reason,  the  capitalist 
class  of  Japan  made  war  against  the  capitalist  class  of 
Russia.  Russia  had  stolen  Korea  and  Japan  wanted  it. 
Korea  belonged  to  the  Koreans,  but  that  made  no  dif- 
ference. Two  thieves  struggled  for  it  and  one  of  them 
has  it. 

The  moment  that  the  capitalist  class  of  one  nation  de- 
termines to  rob  the  capitalist  class  of  another  nation,  tlie 
machinery  for  inflaming  the  public  mind  is  set  in  motion. 
This  machinery  consists  of  tongues  and  printing  presses. 
Tongues  and  printing  presses  immediately  begin  to  fo- 
ment hatred.  Every  man  in  each  country  is  made  to 
feel  that  every  man  in  the  other  country  is  his  personal 
enemy.  But  that  is  stating  it  too  mildly.  Every  man 
in  each  country  is  made  to  feel  that  every  man  in  the 
other  country  is  as  much  worse  than  a  personal  enemy 
as  a  nation  is  greater  than  an  individual.      Fervent  ap- 


lo4       THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

peals  are  made  to  "  patriotism."  "  The  flag  "  is  waved. 
It  is  not  "  sweet  to  die  "  for  Cecil  Rhodes,  for  Roths- 
child or  any  one  else  — "  It  is  sweet  to  die  for  one's 
country."     And  tiiousands  of  men  take  the  bait. 

They  bid  farewell  to  their  homes.  They  embark  upon 
transports.  They  sail  strange  seas.  They  disembark 
upon  strange  shores.  They  see  strange  men.  Men 
whom  they  never  saw  before.  Men  against  whom  they 
have  no  possible  sort  of  grudge.  Men  who  never 
harmed  them.  Men  whom  they  never  harmed.  Com- 
mon workingmen,  like  themselves. 

But  they  shoot  these  men  and  are  shot  by  these  men. 
They  spill  each  other's  blood.  They  break  each  other's 
bones.  They  break  the  hearts  of  each  other's  families. 
And,  when  one  army  or  the  other  has  been  crippled  be- 
yond further  fighting,  there  is  peace.  The  peace  of  the 
sword!  The  peace  of  death!  The  peace  that  leaves 
the  working  classes  of  both  countries  poorer  and  the 
capitalist  class  of  only  one  country  richer. 

Was  it  not  a  great  victory?     Yes. 

It  was  a  great  victory  for  the  capitalists  of  the  world 
who  lent  money  to  both  belligerents.  (But  it  was  not 
a  great  victory  for  the  workingmen  of  both  countries, 
who,  through  weary,  weary  years,  will  be  shorn  of  part 
of  their  earnings  to  pay  the  interest  upon  the  war  bonds.) 

It  was  a  great  victory  for  the  capitalist  group  who 
plunged  for  plunder  and  got  it.  (But  it  was  not  a  great 
victory  for  the  capitalist  group  that  lost  its  plunder.) 

It  was  a  great  victory  for  the  generals,  who,  from  a 
safe  distance,  directed  the  fighting.  (But  it  was  not  a 
great  victory  for  the  workingmen  who,  at  close  quarters, 
fell  before  the  guns  and  were  buried  where  they  fell.) 

It  was  no  sort  of  a  victory  for  the  working  class  of 
either  country.     At  least,  any  victory  that  came  to  the 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR     105 

working  class  of  either  country  was  merely  incidental. 
Great  Britain  whipped  the  Boers,  but  the  British  people 
did  not  get  the  gold  mines  and  the  diamond  mines.  The 
Japanese  whipped  the  Russians,  but  the  Japanese  work- 
ingmen  did  not  get  any  of  the  plunder  for  which  the  war 
was  fought.  The  Japanese  capitalists  got  all  of  the 
plunder.  The  common  people  of  Japan  were  so  poor, 
after  they  had  fought  a  "  successful  "  war  against  Rus- 
sia, that,  within  six  months  of  the  termination  of  the 
war,  the  Mikado  urged  the  sternest  self-denial  upon 
them  as  the  only  means  of  saving  the  country  from  bank- 
ruptcy. And,  notwithstanding  the  victory  of  the  British 
over  the  Boers,  the  common  people  of  England  were 
never  before  so  poor  as  they  are  to-day. 

What  is  the  use  of  blinking  these  facts?  They  are 
facts.  Nobody  can  disprove  them.  They  stand.  They 
stand  even  in  the  face  of  the  further  fact  that  some  wars 
have  helped  the  working  class.  The  American  Revo- 
lution helped  the  working  class  of  America.  But  the 
American  working  class  would  not  have  been  in  need  of 
help  if  the  English  land-owning  class  who  ruled  the 
British  government  had  not  been  using  the  government 
to  plunder  and  oppress  the  people  of  America. 

But  that  is  only  one  side  of  the  story.  Let  us  look  at 
the  American  side.  The  common  people  of  America 
gained  something  from  the  war.  They  slipped  from  the 
clutches  of  the  English  grafters.  But  they  did  not  getj 
what  they  were  promised.  Read  the  Declaration  of  In-'' 
dependence  and  see  what  they  were  promised.  Read  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  see  what  they 
were  given.  Between  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  there  is  all 
the  difference  that  exists  between  blazing  sunlight  and 
pale  moonlight.     No  finer  spirit  was  ever  breathed  into 


io6        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

words  than  that  which  appears  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  Jefferson  wrote  it,  and  he  wrote  splen- 
didly, though  the  Declaration,  as  it  stands,  is  not  as  he 
first  wrote  it.  Jefferson  was  so  afire  with  the  idea  of 
liberty  that  his  associates  upon  the  committee  that 
drafted  the  Declaration  shrank  from  the  light.  They 
compelled  him  to  tone  down  his  words.  But  the  Decla- 
ration as  it  stands  spells  Liberty  with  a  big  "  L,"  And, 
Liberty  with  a  big  "  L  "  can  be  nothing  but  a  republic 
in  which  the  people,  through  their  representatives,  ab- 
solutely rule. 

The  people,  through  their  representatives,  have  never 
ruled  this  country  and  do  not  rule  it  to-day.  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  will  not  let  them.  It  will 
not  let  them  vote  directly  for  President.  In  the  begin- 
ning, the  people  did  not  even  choose  the  electors  who 
elected  the  President.  State  Legislatures  chose  them. 
No  man  except  a  legislator  ever  voted  for  the  electors 
who  chose  Washington,  Adams,  Jefferson,  Madison  and 
some  others.  To  this  day  the  Constitution  denies  the 
right  of  the  people  to  choose  United  States  Senators  and 
Justices  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  In  the 
few  states  where  the  people  practically  choose  United 
States  Senators  they  do  so  only  by  "  going  around  the 
end  "  of  the  Constitution.  Tlicy  exact  a  promise  from 
legislative  candidates  to  elect  the  senators  for  whom  the 
people  have  expressed  a  preference.  But  this  is  wholly 
extra-constitutional.  If  the  legislators  were  to  break 
their  promises,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  would 
be  compelled  to  sustain  them  in  their  constitutional  right 
to  do  so. 

Now,  here  is  the  point.  Granted  that  the  American 
Revolution  was  of  value  to  the  American  working  class. 
Granted  that  the  ills  that  followed  from  American  rule 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR     107 

were  not  so  grievous  as  the  ills  inflicted  by  the  ruhng 
class  of  England.  Grant  all  this  and  more.  Still,  is 
it  not  true  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  ruling  class 
of  England,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  a 
war?  Is  it  not  true  that  the  English  people,  if  they 
had  been  in  control  of  their  own  government,  never 
would  have  harmed  the  people  of  America?  When  did 
the  English  people,  or  any  other  people,  ever  harm  any- 
body? When  did  a  thievish,  murderous  ruling  class 
neglect  to  harm  any  people  whose  plunder  seemed  pos- 
sible and  profitable? 

The  idea  that  the  people  of  one  country,  if  left  to 
themselves,  would  ever  become  embittered  against  the 
people  of  another  country,  is  absurd.  Test  this  state- 
ment by  your  own  feelings.  Are  you  so  angry  at  some 
Japanese  peasant  who  is  now  patiently  toiling  upon  his 
little  hillside  in  Japan,  that  you  would  like  to  go  to  Japan 
and  kill  him?  Is  there  any  person  in  Germany  whom 
you  never  saw  that  you  want  to  kill? 

Of  course  not.  But  if  you  are  a  "  patriotic  "  Ameri- 
can citizen,  you  may  some  day  cross  a  sea  to  kill  some- 
body. If  you  believe  in  "  following  the  flag,"  the  flag 
may  some  day  lead  you  into  the  hell  of  war.  If  you 
believe  "  it  is  sweet  to  die  for  one's  country,"  you  may 
some  day  be  shot  to  pieces.  But  if  so,  you  will  not  die 
for  your  country.  Your  country  wants  you  to  live. 
You  will  die  for  the  ruling  class  of  your  country.  If 
you  should  expire  from  gunshot  wounds  in  Mexico,  you 
might  die  for  Mr.  Guggenheim,  or  some  other  noble 
citizen  who  will  be  far  from  the  firing  line.  Wherever 
you  may  die  from  war-wounds,  you  will  die  to  put  more 
money  into  somebody  else's  pockets. 

It  has  always  been  so.  Wiiy  did  we  go  to  war  against 
England    in    181 2?     Because    the    English    people    had 


io8        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

wronged  us?  The  English  people,  left  to  themselves, 
never  Avronged  anybody.  We  went  to  war  with  Eng- 
land in  1812  because  the  ruling  class  of  England,  then 
deep  in  the  Napoleonic  wars,  were  holding  up  American 
ships  upon  the  high  seas  to  take  off  alleged  British  sub- 
jects and  jam  them  into  the  British  Navy. 
\  Such  action,  of  course,  was  harmful  to  American 
pride,  but  really  it  did  not  deeply  concern  the  American 
.working  class.  Most  of  the  workers  lived  and  died 
without  ever  having  seen  a  ship.  Nevertheless,  the 
American  working  class  was  summoned  to  the  slaughter. 
My  paternal  great-grandfather,  a  humble  farmer  in  the 
Hudson  River  Valley,  was  drafted  into  the  ranks,  and 
to  this  day  I  honor  him  because  he  would  not  go  without 
being  drafted.  And,  when  the  war  was  ended,  the  work- 
ing class  of  America  was  worse  off  than  it  was  before. 

So  was  the  working  class  of  England.  Some  were 
dead.  Some  were  shattered  in  health.  The  living  lived 
less  well  because  they  had  to  pay  the  cost  of  hell.  The 
impressment  of  alleged  British  subjects  upon  the  high 
seas  ceased  only  because  Great  Britain  chose  to  end  it. 
The  treaty  of  peace  contained  no  stipulation  that  she 
should  end  it.  Thus  ceased  this  criminally  stupid  war, 
which  never  would  have  begun  if  the  people  of  Eng- 
land, instead  of  a  small  ruling  class,  had  ruled  their  own 
country. 

The  war  with  Mexico  was  so  monstrous  that  General 
Grant,  who  fought  in  it,  denounced  it  in  the  strongest 
language  at  his  command.  In  the  second  chapter  of 
the  first  volume  of  his  "  Memoirs,"  after  characterizing 
the  Mexican  War  as  "  unholy,"  he  says : 

"The  occupation,  separation  and  annexation"  (of  Texas)  "were, 

from  the  inception  of  the  movement  to  its  final  consummation,  a  con- 
spiracy to  acquire  territory  out  of  which  slave  states  might  be  formed 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR     109 

for  the  American  Union.  Even  if  the  annexation  itself  could  be 
justified,  the  manner  in  which  the  subsequent  war  was  forced  upon 
Mexico  cannot.  .  .  .  The  Southern  Rebellion  was  largely  the 
outgrowth  of  the  Mexican  War." 

Do  you  get  that?  Two  wars  caused  by  slavery. 
Seven  hundred  thousand  men  killed.  Twenty  billion 
dollars'  worth  of  wealth  either  destroyed  outright,  or 
consumed  for  interest  upon  the  public  debt,  or  paid  for 
subsequent  pensions. 

And  for  what? 

To  settle  the  question  of  slavery. 

To  settle  the  question  of  slavery  that  the  men  who 
framed  the  national  Constitution,  most  of  whom  were 
slaveholders,  permitted  to  exist. 

To  settle  the  question  of  slavery,  which,  never  for 
one  moment,  during  all  of  those  intervening  years,  was 
anything  but  a  curse  even  to  the  white  working  class. 

And,  what  is  chattel  slavery?  Merely  a  method  of 
appropriating  the  products  of  the  labor  of  others.  Who 
were  interested  in  maintaining  it?  Certainly  not  the 
working  class,  no  member  of  which  ever  owned  a  slave. 
The  capitalist  class  of  the  South  was  interested  in  it, 
because  its  holdings  were  agricultural,  and  slave-labor 
was  well  adapted  to  agricultural  undertakings.  The  cap- 
italist class  of  the  North  was  not  interested  in  maintain- 
ing chattel  slavery,  because  the  investments  of  Northern 
capitalists  were  chiefly  in  industrial  undertakings,  for 
which  black  slave  labor  was  not  well  suited.  Yet,  the 
North  never  seriously  objected  to  slavery,  as  such.  Men 
like  Wendell  Phillips,  who  did  object  to  slavery,  as  such, 
were  mobbcrl  in  the  North.  If  the  North,  like  the 
South,  had  been,  so  far  as  the  great  capitalists  were 
concerned,  an  agricultural  country,  there  is  no  reason 
y^hatevcr  to  suppose  that  tlic  North  would  not  have  been 


no   THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

in  favar  of  chattel  slavery.  What  the  North  most  ob- 
jected to  was  the  effort  of  the  South  to  extend  slavery 
into  new  states,  as  they  were  admitted.  The  Southern 
aristocracy,  in  this  manner,  sought  to  prevent  the  loss 
of  its  hold  upon  the  government.  The  Northern  capital- 
ists also  desired  to  gain  control  of  the  government. 
When  the  addition  of  new  free  states  stripped  the  South 
of  its  political  supremacy,  the  South  went  to  war.  The 
North  resisted  the  attack  to  save  the  Union. 

Remember,  that  is  why  the  North  went  to  war  —  to 
save  the  Union,  which  had  been  attacked.  It  was  not 
to  free  the  slaves  and  end  slavery.  We  have  this  upon 
the  authority  of  no  less  a  man  than  Lincoln.  Lincoln 
once  sent  word  to  the  South  that  if  it  would  permit  him 
to  put  one  word  into  a  peace-treaty,  he  would  let  the 
South  put  in  all  the  others.  The  one  word  that  Lincoln 
said  he  wanted  to  put  in  was  "  union,"  Lincoln  was 
opposed  to  slavery,  but  he  was  not  so  much  opposed  to 
it  that  he  wanted  to  fight  about  it.  It  was  only  after  the 
South  had  fought  Lincoln  almost  to  a  standstill  that  he 
rose  above  the  Constitution  and  destroyed  an  institution 
that  was  not  even  mentioned  in  the  Constitution  —  much 
less  prohibited  by  it. 

That  is  what  the  Civil  War  was  about  —  chattel 
slavery. 

Something  that  would  not  have  existed  if  men  had 
not  first  existed  who  wished  to  ride  upon  the  backs  of 
others. 

Something  that  would  not  have  existed  if  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  ruling  class  who  drafted  the  Constitu- 
tion had  not  been  eager  that  it  should  persist. 

Something  that  never  for  a  moment  benefited  the 
working  class. 

Yet,  the  working  class  fought  the  war  —  on  one  side 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR     iii 

to  preserve  slavery  for  the  benefit  of  others;  on  the 
other  side  to  maintain  a  union  under  which  white  men 
and  black  men  alike  are  always  upon  the  brink  of  pov- 
erty. 

Seven  hundred  thousand  men  followed  the  Stars  and 
Stripes  and  the  Stars  and  Bars  —  to  bloody  graves. 
Not  one  of  them  would  have  been  killed  in  war  if  the 
common  people  of  each  section  had  ruled  each  section. 
The  common  people  never  owned  slaves.  They  did  well 
if  they  owned  themselves. 

And  now  we  come  to  the  Spanish-American  War. 
We  believe  it  was  fought  to  "  free  Cuba."  We  believe 
it  was  fought  to  "  avenge  the  Maine."  Don't  take  too 
much  for  granted.  Even  Senator  Nelson,  of  Minne- 
sota, declared  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  1912  his 
belief  that  the  war  with  Spain  was  fomented  by  Ameri- 
cans who  held  large  interests  in  Cuba.  He  also  de- 
clared his  belief  that  the  Sugar  Trust  was  trying  to 
foment  another  revolution  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
about  annexation  and  thus  ridding  itself  of  the  80  per- 
cent, tariff  that  is  now  levied  upon  American  sugar. 

But  there  is  more  to  the  story.  To  this  day,  there  is 
no  proof  tliat  the  Maine  was  destroyed  by  Spaniards, 
Cubans,  or  anyone  outside  of  her.  For  fourteen  years 
the  government  of  the  United  States  did  not  seem  to 
want  to  know.  The  Maine,  with  the  bones  of  200  or 
300  workingmcn  aboard  her,  was  permitted  to  lie  in  the 
mud  of  Havana  harbor  where  she  sank.  And,  when 
the  wreck  was  tardily  raised,  nobody  was  able  to  say 
that  the  ship  was  not  destroyed  by  the  explosion  of  her 
own  magazines.  Now,  the  hull  of  the  old  ship  is  down 
far  in  the  ocean,  with  no  hope  tliat  the  facts  will  be 
known. 

But  the  interests  that  wanted  war  had  no  doubt  of 


112 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 


the  facts  in  1898.  Their  newspapers  thundered  their 
theory  every  day.  The  Maine  had  been  destroyed  by 
Spaniards!  We  must  "Remember  the  Maine."  We 
did  remember  the  Maine,  but  we  forgot  ourselves.  We 
forgot  to  be  sure  we  were  right.  And,  even  if  we  were 
right,  we  forgot  that  the  kilHng  of  a  few  thousands  of 
Spanish  workingmen  w^ould  be  no  fit  punishment  for  the 
crime  of  the  Spanish  ruhng  class  that  wrecked  the  Maine. 
We  also  forgot  to  watch  what  Wall  Street  was  doing 
at  the  time.  Read  some  paragraplis  from  the  New  York 
Tribune  of  April  i,  6,  9  and  20,  1898: 

"  Mr.  Guerra,  of  the  Cuban  Junta,  was  asked  about  the  Spanish- 
Cuban  bonds  against  the  revenues  of  the  island.  He  replied  that  he 
did  not  know  their  amount,  which  report  fixed  at  $400,000,000.    .    .   ." 

"  These  bonds  are  payable  in  gold,  at  6  per  cent,  interest,  ten  years 
after  the  war  with  Spain  had  ended.    .    .    ." 

"  The  disposition  of  the  bonds  of  the  Cuban  Republic  has  been  a 
question  discussed  in  certain  quarters  during  the  last  few  days,  and 
the  grave  charge  has  been  made  that  the  bonds  have  been  given 
away  indiscriminately  in  the  United  States  to  people  of  influence 
who  would  therefore  become  interested  in  seeing  the  Republic  of 
Cuba  on  such  terms  with  the  United  States  as  would  make  the  bonds 
valuable  pieces  of  property."  (Kindly  note  that  the  bonds  would  be 
worth  nothing  unless  Spain  were  driven  out  of  Cuba.)  "Men  of 
business,  newspaper,  and  even  public  officials,  have  been  mentioned 
as  having  received  these  bonds  as  a  gift.    .    .    ." 

"  A  congressman  said  in  the  house  on  Monday  that  he  had  $10,000 
worth  of  Cuban  bonds  in  his  pocket,  while  H.  H.  Kohlsaat,  in  an  edi- 
torial in  one  of  the  Chicago  papers,  charges  the  Junta  with  offering 
a  bribe  of  $2,000,000  of  Cuban  bonds  to  a  Chicago  man  to  use  his 
influence  with  the  administration  for  the  recognition  of  the  Cuban 
government." 

"Mr.  Guerra  made  the  somewhat  startling  statement  that  a  man 
representing  certain  individuals  at  Washington  has  sought  to  coerce 
the  Junta  into  selling  $10,000,000  worth  of  bonds  at  20  cents  on  the 
dollar.  '  This  man  practically  threatened  us  that  unless  we  let  him 
have  the  bonds  at  the  price  quoted,  Cuba  would  never  receive  recog- 
nition. He  said  he  was  prepared  to  pay  on  the  spot  $2,000,000  in 
American  money  for  $10,000,000  of  Cuban  bonds,  but  his  offer  was 
refused." 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OE  .WAR     113 

You  probably  do  not  remember  these  items.  Per- 
haps, at  that  time,  Hke  many  other  citizens,  you  were  too 
busy  "  remembering  the  Maine."  If  so,  what  do  you 
think  of  these  items  now?  Do  they  mean  anything  to 
you?  Do  they  offer  any  explanation  as  to  why  this 
government,  after  having  paid  little  or  no  attention  to 
six  rebellions  in  Cuba  during  a  50-year  period,  suddenly 
determined  to  *'  free  Cuba  "  ? 

In  any  event,  remember  that  whatever  Spain  did  to 
Cuba  was  done  by  the  ruling  class  and  not  by  the  peo- 
ple of  Spain.  The  ruling  class  was  bent  upon  the  rob- 
bery of  the  Cubans.  The  people  of  Spain  did  not  profit 
from  the  robbery.  Nor  was  the  working  class  of  the 
United  States  helped  by  the  expulsion  of  Spain  from 
Cuba.  The  Sugar  Trust  and  some  other  great  Ameri- 
can interests  were  helped,  but  the  American  working 
class  was  not.  The  working  class  had  only  the  pleasure 
of  doing  the  fighting,  the  dying  and  the  bill-paying. 

The  American  working  class  profited  no  more  from 
the  war  with  the  Philippines,  which  was  fought  solely 
to  provide  a  new  field  for  the  dollar-activities  of  Ameri- 
can capitalists.  There  is  no  American  workingman  who 
now  finds  it  easier  to  make  a  living  because  of  the  gen- 
erally improved  conditions  brought  about  by  the  war 
with  the  Philippines.  General  conditions  have  not  been 
improved.  They  have  been  made  worse  to  the  extent 
that  the  cost  of  the  war  is  a  burden  upon  industry.  If 
working-class  interests  had  been  consulted,  the  war  never 
would  have  been  waged.  No  working  class  interest  was 
involved.  The  workers  had  everything  to  lose,  includ- 
ing life,  by  going  to  the  front,  and  nothing  to  gain.  But 
they  "  followed  the  flag  " —  and  some  of  them  never 
came  back.  They  stayed  —  six  feet  under  ground  — 
that  the  Tobacco  Trust,  the  Timber  Trust,  and  many 


114        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

other  great  capitalist  interests  might  stay  on  the  islands 
above  the  ground. 

Look  wherever  you  will,  you  cannot  find  a  working 
class  interest  that  should  or  could  cause  workingmen  to 
slaughter  each  other.  Nor  is  this  situation  new.  It  is 
as  old  as  war  itself.  It  is  a  fact  that  men  of  sense  and 
honesty  have  always  recognized.     Tacitus  said: 

"  Gold  and  power  are  the  chief  causes  of  war." 

Dryden,  the  poet,  said:  "  War  seldom  enters  but  where 
wealth  allures." 

And  Carlyle,  in  this  striking  fashion,  showed  the  utter 
absence  of  working-class  interest  in  war: 

"  To  my  own  knowledge,  for  example,  there  dwell  and  toil  in 
the  British  village  of  Dumrudge,  usually  some  five  hundred  souls. 
From  these,  by  certain  '  natural  enemies '  of  the  French,  there  are 
successively  selected,  during  the  French  war,  say,  thirty  able-bodied 
men.  Dumrudge,  at  her  own  expense,  has  suckled  and  nursed  thent. 
She  has  not,  without  difficulty  and  sorrow,  fed  them  up  to  man- 
hood and  even  trained  them  up  to  crafts,  so  that  one  can  weave, 
another  build,  another  hammer,  and  the  weakest  can  stand  under 
some  thirty  stone,  avoirdupois. 

"  Nevertheless,  amid  much  weeping  and  swearing,  they  are  se- 
lected, all  dressed  in  red  and  shipped  away,  at  public  expense, 
some  two  thousand  miles,  or,  say,  only  to  the  south  of  Spain, 
and  fed  there  till  wanted. 

"  And  now,  to  the  same  spot  in  the  South  of  Spain,  are  sent 
thirty  similar  French  artisans  —  in  like  manner  wending  their 
ways,  till  at  length,  after  infinite  effort,  the  two  parties  come  into 
actual  juxtaposition,  and  thirty  stand  facing  thirty,  each  with  a 
gim  in  his  hand.  Straightway  the  order  'Firel'  is  given,  and  they 
blow  the  souls  out  of  one  another;  and,  in  the  place  of  sixty  brisk, 
useful  craftsmen,  the  world  has  sixty  dead  carcasses,  which  it 
must  bury   and   anew  shed  tears   for. 

"Had  these  men  any  quarrel?  Busy  as  the  devil  is,  not  the 
smallest!  They  lived  far  enough  apart;  were  the  entirest  stran- 
gers; nay,  in  so  wide  a  universe,  there  was  even,  unconsciously, 
by  commerce,  some  mutual  helpfulness  between  them. 

"How,  then? 

"  Simpleton  1  Their  governors  had  fallen  out,  and,  instead  of 
shooting  one  another,  had  these  poor  blockheads  shoot." 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR   115 

That  is  the  cause  of  war  between  nations  — "  the  gov- 
ernors fall  out."  And  who  are  the  governors?  No- 
body but  the  representatives  of  the  ruling  class,  who 
clash  in  their  race  for  plunder  and  deceive  w^orkingmen 
into  doing  their  fighting  for  them. 

Now,  let  us  go  back  a  bit.  You  may  recall  that  I  said 
that  the  ruling  capitalist  class  uses  government  as  a  two- 
handed  claw  with  which  to  pull  golden  chestnuts  out  of 
the  fire.  One  hand  of  this  claw  is  the  power  to  make 
and  enforce  laws.  The  other  hand  —  the  power  to 
^vage  war  —  is  used  to  grab  what  cannot  be  grabbed 
with  laws.  Wars  between  nations  illustrate  one  form 
of  effort  to  get  what  laws  cannot  give.  Here  is  an- 
other: 

The  United  States  is  dotted  with  forts,  arsenals  and 
armories.  Far  in  the  interior,  where,  by  the  widest 
stretch  of  the  imagination,  no  foreign  army  could  come, 
we  see  these  grim  reminders  and  prognosticators  of 
war.  Under  the  Dick  Military  Law,  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  without  further  legislation,  can  com- 
pel every  man  in  the  United  States,  between  the  ages  of 
18  and  45  years,  to  enlist  in  the  militia  of  his  state  and 
serve  under  the  orders  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  The  President,  therefore,  has  it  in  his  power  at 
any  time  to  raise  an  army  of  about  12,000,000  men  and 
place  them  in  the  field. 

What  for?  To  fight  a  foreign  foe?  Not  much. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  forbids  the  Presi- 
dent to  make  war  against  a  foreign  nation  without  the 
explicit  authorization  of  Congress.  But  the  Dick  Law 
authorizes  the  President  to  raise  this  enormous  army 
and  to  command  it. 

Here  is  the  question.  At  whom  is  this  enormous  po- 
tential army  aimed?     Why  is  the  land  strewn  with  ar- 


ii6        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

senals  and  armories  that  could  be  of  little  or  no  service 
in  a  foreign  war? 

To  quote  a  word  from  Carlyle,  "  Simpleton,"  do  you 
not  know  that  all  of  these  arrangements  are  made  to 
shoot  you  if  the  capitalist  class  should  ever  decide  that 
you  should  be  shot?  Nor,  have  you  never  noticed 
against  whom  the  state  militia  is  invariably  used? 

If  you  have  noticed  none  of  these  things,  perhaps  it' 
would  be  well  for  you  to  wake  up.  The  militia  of  the 
states  is  practically  never  used  except  to  beat  down  work- 
ingmen  who  have  revolted  against  the  outrageous 
wrongs  heaped  upon  them  by  their  employers.  Ameri- 
can workingmen  do  not  readily  revolt.  Nowhere  are 
they  any  too  prosperous.  Millions  believe  from  the  bot- 
toms of  their  hearts  that  they  are  being  robbed.  Yet, 
they  keep  on.  Only  when  they  are  ground  into  the 
dust,  as  they  were  by  the  Woolen  Trust  at  Lawrence, 
or  by  the  Coal  Trust  in  Pennsylvania,  do  they  rebel. 

Please,  therefore,  note  this  monstrous  situation : 

Under  the  laws  of  the  land,  the  capitalists  have  a 
right  to  grind  their  employees  as  deeply  into  the  dust  as 
they  can  grind  them. 

While  this  process  is  going  on  the  national  and  state 
troops  are  quite  still.  But  when  human  nature,  unable 
to  bear  up  longer,  explodes  and  a  few  window  panes  are 
broken,  the  troops  come  scurrying  to  the  scene.  Sol- 
diers fill  the  streets,  citizens  are  ordered  this  way  and 
that,  guns  are  fired  recklessly,  perhaps  a  man  or  two  or 
a  woman  or  two  are  killed ;  the  soldiers  deny  the  killing 
and  charge  it  to  the  strikers  themselves,  and  eventually 
the  strike  is  broken. 

Can  you  recall  when  the  militia  of  a  state  was  re- 
cently used  for  anything  else? 

Now,  we  Socialists  do  not  believe  in  violence,  even  by 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR   117; 

strikers.  We  are  supposed  to  be  greedy  for  blood,  but 
we  are  not.  We  do  believe,  however,  the  best  way  to 
end  violence  caused  by  robbery  is  to  end  the  robbery. 
We  believe  it  is  contemptible  for  a  government  to  be 
blind  to  robbery  so  long  as  it  proceeds  without  an  out- 
cry from  the  victim.  We  believe  it  is  criminal  for  the 
government  to  shoot  the  victim  simply  because,  in  his 
distress,  he  breaks  a  pane  of  glass  in  the  factory  or  mill 
in  which  he  was  robbed.  We  can  understand  why  such 
crimes  are  committed,  because  we  know  that  the  same 
capitalist  interests  that  control  industry  also  control  gov- 
ernment. But,  understanding  the  offense  does  not  make 
us  approve  it.  We  are  against  the  great  crime  of  war, 
whether  it  be  practiced  upon  a  huge  scale  abroad,  or  upon 
a  small  scale  at  home. 

But  the  President  is  also  opposed  to  war,  the  Czar  of 
Russia  is  also  opposed  to  war,  and  the  German  Emperor 
is  also  opposed  to  war.  No  Socialist  can  outdo  any  of 
these  gentlemen  in  deploring  war.  The  smallest  Social- 
ist, however,  outdoes  any  of  these  gentlemen  in  making 
good  upon  his  declaration.  Socialists  will  not  go  to 
war.  They  will  not  join  the  army,  the  militia,  or  the 
navy.  All  over  the  world  this  is  true.  They  preach 
against  war  in  season  and  out  of  season.  They 
preach  against  anything  that  tends  toward  war. 
They  preach  against  dressing  little  boys  as  soldiers  and 
calling  them  "  scouts."  And  wherever  Socialists  hold 
seats  in  national  legislative  bodies,  their  attitude  is  **  No 
men ;  no  money."  They  will  vote  for  no  bill  that  seeks 
to  draw  another  man  or  another  dollar  into  the  horrible 
game  of  war. 

Those  who  do  not  understand  us,  or  who  do  not  want 
us  to  be  understood,  charge  us  with  lack  of  patriotism. 
If  blood-letting  for  dollars  be  the  test  of  patriotism,j  we 


ii8        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

certainly  are  not  patriotic.  We  refuse  to  kill  men  for 
money,  either  for  ourselves  or  for  any  one  else.  Nor 
do  we  believe  that  Frenchmen,  Englishmen,  Germans  or 
any  others  are  less  our  brothers  than  are  Americans. 
We  regard  all  nationalities  and  races  as  members  of  the 
great  human  family.  We  want  this  family  to  live  in 
peace.     We  preach  peace.     We  live  peace.  i 

But  how  can  there  be  peace  when  great  groups  of  cap- 
italists are  contending  for  profits?  How  can  there  be 
peace  when  great  groups  of  capitalists  controlling  their 
respective  governments,  build  great  fleets  and  muster 
great  armies  to  struggle  for  trade  and  profits?  How 
can  there  be  peace  when  these  same  capitalists,  through 
their  control  of  government,  teach  even  school  children 
that  the  warrior's  trade  is  glorious  and  that  the  citizen's 
duty  is  to  "stand  by  the  flag"?  Our  flag  has  often 
stood  where  it  had  no  moral  right  to  stand.  It  has  stood 
for  the  wrongs  of  capitalism  when  it  should  have  stood 
for  the  rights  of  the  people.  Our  flag  will  always  stand 
for  the  wrongs  of  capitalism,  so  long  as  capitalism  con- 
trols the  government. 

In  such  circumstances,  there  can  be  no  assured  peace. 
Peace  tribunals,  like  that  of  The  Hague,  may  be  estab- 
lished until  their  sponsors  are  black  in  the  face,  but  still 
there  will  be  no  peace.  There  can  be  no  peace.  Profits 
prevent.  The  gentlemen  who  attach  themselves  to  these 
tribunals  want  peace  —  if.  Peace  if  it  can  be  main- 
tained without  hurting  profits.  Peace  if  it  can  be  main- 
tained without  restraining  capitalistic  brigands  who  wish 
to  descend  upon  the  property  of  others.  Peace  if  it 
can  be  had  without  price. 

So  war  continues  in  a  world  that  is  weary  of  war. 
Heavier  and  heavier  becomes  the  burden  of  armaments. 
The   workingman   staggers   under   the    weight   of   the 


SOCIALISM  THE  LONE  FOE  OF  WAR   119 

foiirteen-inch  gun.     The  workingman  may  go  hungry. 
The  gun  must  be  fed. 

"Whether  your  shell  hits  the  target  or  not, 
Your  cost  is  six   hundred  dollars  a  shot. 
You  thing  of  noise  and  flame  and  power, 
We  feed  you  a  hundred  barrels  of  flour 
Each  time  you  roar.     Your  flame  is  fed 
With   twenty  thousand   loaves  of  bread. 
Silence !     A  million  hungry  men 
Seek  bread  to  fill  their  mouths  again."* 

Only  one  machine  can  smash  this  gun,  and  that  is  the 
printing  press.  The  greatest  gun  can  shoot  only  twenty 
miles  or  so.  The  Socialist  press  can  shoot  and  is  shoot- 
ing around  the  world.  When  the  working  class  controls 
its  printing  presses,  war  will  end. 

Do  you  really  want  war  to  end,  or  is  a  string  attached 
to  your  wish?  If  you  mean  business,  you  can  help  end 
it.  But  if  you  want  the  privilege  of  aiding  in  this  great 
work  for  humanity,  you  will  have  to  vote  the  Socialist 
ticket.  It  is  the  only  ticket  that  always  and  everywhere 
is  sternly  against  war,  as  the  Socialist  party  is  the  only 
party  opposed  to  the  profit  system  that  makes  w^ars. 

I  cannot  close  this  chapter  without  calling  the  atten- 
tion of  readers  to  a  book  entitled  "  War —  What  For?  " 
by  Mr.  George  R.  Kirkpatrick.  It  is  published  by  the 
author  at  West  Lafayette,  Ohio.  Between  darkness  and 
daylight,  one  night,  I  read  it  all.  I  can  never  forget  it. 
If  all  the  world  had  read  it,  there  would  be  no  more  war. 

♦P.  F.  McCarthy,  in  the  New  York  World. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

WHY   SOCIALISTS   OPPOSE   "  RADICAL  "    POLITICIANS 

A"  RADICAL  "  politician,  when  he  Is  not  an  utter 
fraud,  is  a  well-meaning  man  who  lacks  either 
the  courage  or  the  insight  to  do  well.  He  can  see 
wrongs,  but  he  cannot  see  rights.  Or,  if  he  can  see 
rights,  he  dare  not  do  right.  Always,  there  is  some 
reason  why  he  should  not  do  right.  The  people  are 
not  ready.  The  time  is  not  propitious.  Thus  does  he 
appease  his  conscience,  betray  his  followers  and  destroy 
himself. 

Abraham  Lincoln,  during  all  except  the  last  two  years 
of  his  life,  was  such  a  man.  I  sometimes  feel  that  this 
is  why  so  many  modern  "  radicals  "  believe  they  are  sec- 
ond Lincolns.  They  seem  to  remember  Lincoln  only  as 
he  was  when  he  was  too  small  for  his  task.  Mr.  Roose- 
velt, in  particular,  is  suspected  of  harboring  the  belief 
that  he  is  a  second  Lincoln.  In  a  way  and  to  a  degree, 
Mr.  Roosevelt  is  right.  The  ground  upon  which  Mr. 
Roosevelt  now  stands  is  broadly  comparable  to  the  ground 
upon  which  Mr.  Lincoln  stood  before  he  signed  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation.  Mr.  Lincoln  hated  chattel 
slavery,  but  was  willing  to  end  the  war  with  slavery  in- 
tact. Mr.  Roosevelt  hates  the  robbery  of  man  by  man, 
but  he  shrinks  from  trying  to  seize  the  club  with  which 
the  robbery  is  committed.  He  is  willing  to  pick  at  the 
splinters  upon  the  club,  precisely  as  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
long  willing  to  content  himself  with  efforts  to  restrict 
the  evil  of  slavery.  And,  Mr.  Roosevelt,  picking  at 
splinters,  is  no  more  useful  in  destroying  poverty  than 

120 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    121 

was  Mr.  Lincoln,  when  he  picked  at  the  spHnters  of 
chattel  slavery.  The  Civil  War  came  on,  in  spite  of  all 
that  Lincoln  did,  because  he  did  no  more  than  to  tem- 
porize with  the  evil  that  was  destined  to  cause  the  war. 
Mr.  Roosevelt,  even  as  the  leader  of  a  new  political 
party,  is  doing  no  more  than  to  temporize  with  the 
monstrous  evil  of  unnecessary  poverty  in  America. 

Let  us  look,  even  more  closely,  into  the  life  of  Lin- 
coln. The  career  of  no  other  man  of  modern  times  is 
so  well  suited  to  our  purpose.  We  want  to  know 
whether  a  "  radical "  like  Roosevelt  or  Wilson  should 
be  more  highly  regarded  by  the  people  than  a  revolu- 
tionist like  Debs  or  Berger.  Lincoln,  at  different  times 
in  his  life,  was  both  a  "  radical  "  and  a  revolutionist. 
His  "  radical  "  beliefs  put  him  into  the  White  House. 
One  colossal  revolutionary  act  put  him  into  the  hearts 
of  men.  We  Socialists  feel  that  he  nestles  a  little  more 
closely  to  our  hearts  than  he  does  to  some  others. 
When  Lincoln  ceased  to  temporize  with  chattel  slavery 
and  struck  it  down,  he  became  one  of  us.  He  actually 
did  to  chattel  slavery  what  we  are  trying  to  do  to  wage 
slavery. 

The  magnitude  of  this  act,  as  well  as  the  usefulness 
of  a  mere  "  radical  "  politician,  may  be  measured  by 
what  Lincoln's  life  would  have  been  without  his  name 
at  the  bottom  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation.  Tra- 
.dition  has  it  that  Lincoln  became  a  radical  upon  the 
.slavery  question  when,  as  a  flatboatman  upon  the  Mis- 
sissipiji,  he  saw  a  ncgress  sold  upon  the  auction  block  at 
New  Orleans.  Tradition  has  it  that  he  said :  "  If  I  ever 
have  a  ciiance  to  iiit  slavery,  I  will  hit  it  and  hit  it  hard." 

The  fact  is  that  when  Mr.  Lincoln  began  to  get  the 
power  to  hit  slavery,  he  did  not  hit  it  hard.  He  was  a 
"  radical  "  politician  and  therefore  could  not  hit  it  hard. 


122        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

He  was  against  slavery,  but  he  was  also  against  any- 
thing that  would  end  slavery.  In  the  phrase  of  our 
time,  he  wanted  to  "  regulate  "  slavery.  Men  like  John 
Brown  and  William  Lloyd  Garrison  wanted  to  end 
slavery  and  advocated  means  that  would  have  ended  it, 
but  Lincoln,  though  he  hated  slavery  as  much  as  they 
did,  wanted  only  to  restrict  it.  He  was  "  radical." 
Brown  and  Garrison  were  revolutionary.  Lincoln  meant 
well.     Brown  and  Garrison  were  determined  to  do  well. 

But  after  Lincoln,  even  as  President,  had  continued 
to  temporize  with  slavery;  after  he  had  sent  word  to  the 
Southern  leaders  that  if  they  would  let  him  write  intc^ 
a  treaty  of  peace  the  one  word  "  union  "  he  would  let 
them  write  all  of  the  other  words,  including  "  slavery  " 
—  after  all  of  this,  there  came  a  change,  and  Lincoln 
ceased  to  be  a  "  radical."  Then,  and  not  until  then,  did 
he  strike  the  blow  that  in  his  youth  he  declared  he  would 
strike  if  ever  the  opportunity  should  come.  With  only 
the  briefest  words  he  laid  the  Emancipation  Proclama- 
tion before  his  cabinet. 

"  I  do  not  lay  this  before  you  for  your  advice,"  he 
said,  "  but  only  for  your  information.  I  have  promised 
my  God  that  I  will  do  this,  and  I  shall  do  it." 

Thus  spoke  the  revolutionist.  The  time  for  "  radical- 
ism "  had  passed.  Slavery,  during  half  a  century  of 
*'  radicalism,"  had  expanded.  Having  the  power  to  kill 
chattel  slavery  and  daring  to  use  it,  Lincoln  killed  chat- 
tel slavery.  He  put  himself  into  the  hearts  of  men.  He 
wrote  his  name  so  big  in  history  that  the  names  of  all 
other  men  since  his  time  seem  small. 

Yet  Lincoln,  if  he  had  been  content  to  remain  merely 
a  "  radical,"  could  have  performed  no  service  for  his 
country  worth  while,  and  Fame  would  have  missed  him 
])y  many  a  mile.    If  the  South  had  won,  the  North 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    123 

would  have  blamed  Lincoln.  If  the  North  had  won, 
without  destroying  chattel  slavery,  nothing  would  have 
been  settled,  and  Lincoln  would  have  been  given  the 
credit  for  settling  nothing.  Lincoln's  greatest  opportu- 
nity to  serve  his  country  lay  in  doing  precisely  what  he 
did,  and  it  is  to  his  eternal  glory  that  he  had  both  the 
understanding  and  the  courage  to  do  it. 
'  The  times  again  call  loudly  for  such  a  man.  Chattel 
slavery  is  dead,  but  a  greater  slavery  has  grown  up  in  its 
place.  Wage  slavery  is  as  much  greater  than  chattel 
slavery  as  the  white  people  in  this  country  are  more 
numerous  than  the  black  people.  Poverty  is  widespread 
and  the  fear  of  poverty  is  all  but  universal.  No  one 
knows  how  much  longer  he  will  have  employment.  No 
one  can  know  how  much  longer  he  will  have  employ- 
ment. A  few  own  all  of  the  machinery  without  which 
we  cannot  be  employed.  These  few  have  it  in  their 
power  to  say  whether  we  shall  be  permitted  to  earn  the 
means  of  life.  We  may  want  to  work  as  much  as  we 
please,  but  we  cannot  work  unless  they  please.  They  do 
not  please  to  let  us  work  unless  they  believe  they  can  see 
a  profit  in  so  doing.  Tliat  we  need  work  means  noth- 
ing to  those  who  own  the  great  industries  of  the  coun- 
try. Nor  does  the  fact  that  the  people  need  the  things  we 
could  make.  They  consider  only  the  question :  "  Is  there 
profit  in  it?"  By  their  answer,  we  eat  or  hunger,  live 
or  die. 

Such  times  could  not  help  but  call  for  great  men,  even 
in  little  places.  The  times  call  for  great  men  to  take 
charge  of  municipal  affairs,  lest  the  poor  shall  be  tor- 
tured with  bad  tenements  and  robbed  of  their  last  nick- 
els by  little  grafters  while  greater  grafters  are  taking 
their  dollars.  The  times  call  for  great  men  in  state 
offices,  in  judicial  positions,  in  Congress  and  in  the  White 


124       .THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

House.  But,  in  response  to  the  White  House  call,  who 
answered  in  1912?  Mr.  Roosevelt  answered.  Mr.  Wil- 
son answered. 

Socialists  do  not  regard  either  Mr.  Roosevelt  or  Mr. 
Wilson  as  a  fraudulent  "  radical,"  in  the  sense  that  they 
believe  either  of  them  to  be  intent  upon  wantonly  fooling 
the  people.     We  regard  Mr.  Roosevelt  as  being  some- 
thing of  a  self-seeker.     We  regard  him  as  the  embodi- 
ment of  inconsistency.     We  know  that  when  he  was 
President  he  never  tried  to  do  some  of  the  things  that 
he  later  promised  to  do  if  we  would  again  make  him 
President.     We  know  he  does  not  now  promise  to  try 
to  take  away  the  club  with  which  robbery  is  committed. 
He  is  still  picking  at  the  splinters,  taking  care  to  lay  no 
hand  upon  the  club  itself.     And,  so  far  as  concerns  Mr. 
Wilson,  we  regard  him  as  an  amiable,  cultured  gentle- 
man, who,  meaning  well,  as  he  doubtless  does,  lacks  the 
imderstanding  without  which  he  can  not  do  well.     We 
also  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  immediately  following 
Mr.  Wilson's  nomination  he  began  to  placate  the  great 
grafters.     He  invited  them  to  his  home  to  hold  counsel 
with  him.     And,  in  his  speech  of  acceptance,  he  all  but 
laid  himself  at  their  feet.     He  said  nothing  worth  say- 
ing.    He  confined  himself  to  platitudes.     He  swore  al- 
legiance to  the  "  rule  of  right "  as  applied  to  govern- 
ment, without  giving  the  slightest  indication  of  his  defini- 
tion of  right.     Wall  Street  applauded  him.     Stocks  went 
up.     But  would  stocks  have  gone  up  if  Wall  Street  had 
believed  that,  under  Wilson,  grafters  w^ould  not  be  per- 
mitted to  continue  to  rob  you  ? 

We  Socialists  may  be  extremely  absurd  persons,  but, 
as  we  look  about  us,  we  see  two  or  three  things  that 
should  be  done  at  once. 

We  believe   every  man   should  have  the   continuous 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    125 

right  to  work.  We  believe  this  right  should  be  guaran- 
teed by  law.  The  law  prohibits  stealing  and  vagrancy. 
Why  should  not  the  law,  therefore,  guarantee  the  right 
to  avoid  the  necessity  for  becoming  either  a  thief  or  a 
vagrant  ? 

We  also  believe  that  after  a  man  has  worked  he  should 
not  be  robbed.  We  believe  if  nobody  were  robbed,  there 
would  be  in  this  country  neither  millionaires  nor  paupers. 
From  the  fact  that  there  are  in  this  country  so  many 
millionaires  and  so  many  paupers  or  near-paupers,  we 
deduce  that  the  extent  of  the  robbery  of  the  many  by  the 
few  is  appalling. 

We  want  this  stopped.  We  don't  demand  that  it  be 
stopped  a  hundred  years  hence  —  we  demand  that  it  be 
stopped  now.  We  are  interested  in  our  posterity,  but 
we  are  also  interested  in  ourselves.  We  want  to  enjoy 
life  a  little.  This  world  looks  good  to  us.  We  know 
it  could  be  good  to  us.  We  demand  that  it  shall  be 
good  to  us.  Nor  are  we  appeased  by  the  promise  of 
some  "  radical  "  like  Mr.  Roosevelt  or  Mr.  Wilson  that 
if  we  will  elect  him  President,  he  will  try  to  make  the 
world  a  little  less  bad  for  us.  The  promise  of  a  i  per 
cent,  or  a  5  per  cent,  reduction  in  robbery  constitutes  no 
blandishment.  We  demand  a  100  per  cent,  reduction  in 
robbery.  We  are  tired  of  robbery.  We  mean  to  end 
it.  We  shall  end  it.  We  cannot  fail,  because  we  have 
a  weapon  with  which  the  robbed  class  never  before 
fought.  We  have  the  gigantic  printing  press.  Our  an- 
cestors had  a  puny  press,  or  none  at  all.  We  shall 
carry  our  word  far.  Wherever  our  word  goes  it  will 
wake.  Sooner  or  later,  the  robbed  will  understand. 
Then  robbery  will  cease.  Millions  of  people  who  under- 
stand how  to  stop  robbery  will  never  consent  to  let  a 
few  continue  to  rob  them. 


126       THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Such  is  our  demand  —  a  lOO  per  cent,  reduction  in 
robbery  and  the  right  of  the  individual  to  continuous 
work.  Yet,  so  far  as  we  know,  we  want  no  more  than 
is  wanted  by  every  other  man  who  is  not  robbing  any- 
body. We  know  of  no  man  who  is  wilHng  to  be  denied 
the  right  to  work.  We  know  of  no  man  who  is  wilhng 
to  be  robbed.  We  differ  from  you  RepuljHcans  and 
Democrats  only  in  this:  You  seem  to  be  willing  to  take 
an  eternity  to  end  robbery  and  secure  a  guarantee  to  the 
right  to  labor.  We  tell  you  that  if  you  take  an  eternity 
to  get  these  rights  you  will  never  get  them.  We  also 
tell  you  that  with  either  Mr.  Wilson,  Mr.  Roosevelt  or 
any  other  so-called  "  radical  "  in  the  White  House  the 
working  class  will  remain  poverty-stricken. 

These  gentlemen  want  to  make  you  an  omelette,  but 
they  do  not  want  to  break  any  eggs.  They  are  afraid 
to  break  eggs.  Breaking  eggs  means  destroying  the 
great  fundamental  laws  that  capitalists  use  to  rob  you. 
iYet,  how  are  you  ever  to  have  an  omelette  unless  eggs 
are  broken?  How  can  you  be  helped  without  hurting 
those  who  are  now  hurting  you? 

Make  no  mistake  —  anything  that  will  make  it  much 
easier  for  you  to  live  by  working  will  make  it  much 
harder  for  capitalists  to  live  without  working.  Pick- 
ing at  the  splinters  of  this  poverty-problem  will  not  do. 
The  wrong  is  great;  the  remedy  must  be  equally  great. 

Anything  that  will  not  hurt  the  capitalist  class  much 
will  not  help  you  much. 

Between  you  and  the  capitalist  class  there  can  be  no 
peace. 

So  long  as  either  of  you  exists,  there  can  be  only  war. 

You  will  continue  to  fight  for  the  right  to  live. 

The  capitalist  class  will  continue  to  refuse  you  the 
right  to  live  except  at  the  price  of  a  profit. 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    127 

This  ultimatum,  which  has  never  appealed  to  your 
stomach,  will  some  day  not  appeal  to  your  brain. 

You  will  begin  to  ask  questions. 

You  will  ask  if  you  were  born  only  that  Mr.  Morgan, 
Mr.  Armour  or  Mr.  Ryan  might  be  made  a  little  richer. 

You  will  ask  if  it  is  right  that  you  should  die  when 
you  can  no  longer  make  others  richer. 

Your  common  sense  will  tell  you  that  you  were  not 
born  to  make  anybody  richer. 

Your  common  sense  will  tell  you  that  you  have  a 
right  to  live,  whether  anybody  be  thereby  made  richer. 

And,  when  that  time  comes,  you  will  be  in  no  mood 
to  listen  to  the  remedies  of  "  radical  "  gentlemen  like 
Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Wilson. 

You  will  no  longer  want  wage  slavery  "  regulated  " 
—  you  will  want  it  destroyed. 

You  will  call  for  another  Lincoln  to  destroy  wage 
slavery  as  the  first  Lincoln  destroyed  chattel  slavery. 

And  your  call  will  be  answered,  because  you  will  an- 
swer it  yourself. 

You  will  place  in  office  not  only  a  man  but  men'  who 
will  work  your  will.  You  will  know  what  you  want 
and  you  will  get  it,  because  you  will  know  how  to  get  it. 

The  reason  you  have  never  gotten  what  you  want  is 
because  you  have  never  known  how  to  get  it.  You  want 
the  right  to  work  without  being  robbed.  You  do  not 
seem  to  realize  that  it  is  the  existence  of  the  capitalist 
system  that  causes  you  to  be  robbed.  In  an  indefinite 
.sort  of  way  you  seem  to  believe  that  it  is  possible  for  a 
small  class  of  bond-holders  and  share-holders  to  live  in 
luxury  without  working  and,  at  the  same  time,  take  noth- 
ing from  the  product  of  your  labor.  If  dividends  grew 
upon  one  tree  and  wages  upon  another,  your  belief  would 
be   justified.     But,   inasmuch   as   dividends  and   wages 


128        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

grow  upon  the  same  tree,  yonr  belief  is  not  justified. 
Both  are  the  products  of  your  labor.  If  the  bondholders 
Avere  to  take  everything  you  produce,  you  would  have 
nothing.  If  you  were  to  take  everything  you  produce, 
the  bondholders  and  other  capitalists  would  have  noth- 
ing. 

Such  being  the  fact,  what  possible  benefit  can  come  to 
the  American  people  through  the  election  to  the  Presi- 
dency of  Woodrow  Wilson?  Mr.  Wilson  is  not  op- 
posed to  the  capitalist  system.  He  believes  one  class 
should  own  all  of  the  great  industries  of  the  country 
while  another  class  toils  in  them.  Believing  thus,  he 
necessarily  believes  no  man  has  a  right  to  work,  how- 
ever sore  may  be  his  need,  unless  some  other  man  thinks 
he  can  see  a  profit  in  hiring  him.  If  he  did  not  so  be- 
lieve, he  would  not  have  stood  for  the  Presidency  upon 
the  Democratic  platform.  The  importance  of  securing 
to  each  individual  the  right  to  work  would  have  pre- 
vented him  from  so  standing.  He  would  have  pro- 
claimed to  the  country  an  amendment  to  the  platform 
in  some  such  words  as  these : 

"  //  you  elect  me  President,  I  will  urge  the  passage 
of  a  law  that  will  make  it  a  felony  for  any  capitalist  to 
refuse  work  at  wages  representing  the  market  price  of 
the  product,  except  at  such  times  as  his  steel  plants,  rail- 
roads, or  other  industries,  are  running  at  fidl  capacity." 

He  would  also  have  added: 

"  When  a  man's  right  to  work  is  involved,  I  care  not 
whether  the  man  who  hires  him  makes  a  profit  or  not. 
Life  comes  before  profits.  Work  comes  before  life. 
J  am  for  men." 

Not  one  word  of  which  Mr.  Wilson  ever  said.  Mr. 
Wilson  believes  in  profits  first  and  life,  if  at  all,  after- 
ward.    He  may  not  believe  he  does,  but  he  does.     That 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "     129 

is  what  his  attitude  amounts  to.  He  wants  both  profits 
and  life  if  we  can  get  them.  But  if  either  must  fall,  it 
must  be  life.  Life  must  always  fall  when  work  falls. 
Mr.  Wilson  stands  for  absolutely  nothing  that  will  put 
the  worker's  right  to  work  before  the  capitalist's  greed 
for  profits.  Let  him  or  any  of  his  friends  point  out  a 
word  in  his  platform,  or  any  of  his  public  utterances, 
to  the  contrary.  There  is  no  such  word,  because  it  has 
never  been  spoken  or  written  by  Mr.  Wilson  or  anybody 
who  is  back  of  him  or  in  front  of  him. 

More  astounding  do  these  facts  become  as  we  con- 
sider them.  Here  is  a  great  nation,  eager  to  earn  its 
bread.  Of  the  many  millions  who  compose  this  nation, 
not  one  in  ten  ever  has  or  ever  will  receive  a  profit  upon 
anything.  More  than  nine-tenths  of  our  many  millions 
are  wage-laborers  or  farmers.  Naturally,  they  care 
nothing  about  profits.  If  everybody  were  continuously 
employed  at  good  wages,  and  the  balance-sheets,  at  the 
end  of  the  year,  should  show  not  one  dollar  left  for 
dividends,  nobody  except  the  capitalists  would  shed  a 
tear.  So  little  does  the  working  class  really  care  about 
profits.  So  convinced  is  the  working  class  that  the  right 
to  work,  together  with  the  right  to  be  protected  from 
robbery,  should  come  ahead  of  everything  else.  Yet 
this  very  working  class  that  cares  nothing  about  profits; 
that  cares  and  needs  to  care  so  much  about  the  continu- 
ous right  to  work;  that  cares  and  needs  to  care  so  much 
about  the  right  to  be  protected  from  robbery  —  this 
very  working  class  gave  Mr.  Wilson  almost  every  vote 
he  received! 

Do  the  people  of  America  know  how  to  get  what  they 
want? 

The  people  of  America  want  the  continuous  right  to 
work. 


I30        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Mr.  Wilson  offers  them  fine  phrases  about  the  "  rule 
of  right  " —  phrases  that  Wall  Street  applauds  because 
Wall  Street  knows  such  phrases  mean  the  continued  rule 
of  wrong. 

The  people  of  America  want  the  right  to  be  protected 
from  robbery,  and  Mr.  Wilson  offers  them  an  anti-trust 
plank,  in  which  they  are  solemnly  assured  that  if  they 
will  only  wait  until  Mr.  Rockefeller,  Mr.  Morgan  and 
other  similar  gentlemen  are  in  jail,  they  will  be  very 
happy. 

Is  it  not  absurd?  Indeed,  it  is  not.  It  is  pitiful.  It 
is  pitiful  that  a  people  should  so  long  have  been  kept  in 
ignorance  of  both  the  nature  of  their  social  malady  and 
its  cure.  Yet,  how  could  they  be  otherwise  than  ig- 
norant? They  depend  for  such  information  upon  their 
newspapers,  magazines,  public  officials,  and  public  speak- 
ers. Until  recently,  almost  all  of  these  sources  were 
poisoned  against  the  people.  They  were  poisoned 
against  the  people  because  they  were  controlled,  in  one 
way  or  another,  by  the  capitalist  class.  They  are  still 
almost  all  poisoned  in  the  interest  of  the  capitalist  class. 
The  truth  about  Socialism  is  carefully  suppressed.  The 
false  is  carefully  put  forward.  Wrongs  are  admitted, 
but  rights  are  not  recognized.  The  people  are  robbed, 
yes  —  but  who  robs  them?  Why,  the  trusts  and  the 
high-tariff  gentlemen,  certainly.  Therefore,  if  we  lower 
the  tariff  and  place  the  trust  gentlemen  in  jail,  we  shall 
be  happy. 

Nobody  seems  moved  to  recall  whether  we  were  happy 
when  the  tariff  was  low  and  there  were  no  trusts. 

Nobody  seems  to  recall  that  the  working  class  has 
never  been  happy;  that  it  has  always  been  the  prey  of  a 
master  class  which  has  resorted  first  to  one  method  and 
then  to  another  to  plunder.     In  fact,  nobody  but  Social- 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    131 

ists  seems  to  do  any  serious  thinking  until  his  favorite 
"  radical  "  President  has  passed  into  history  without 
doing  the  slightest  thing  to  alleviate  poverty. 

Grover  Cleveland  was  regarded,  each  time  he  was 
elected,  as  radical.  In  Cleveland's  day,  not  to  be  in 
favor  of  highway  robbery  in  office  was  regarded  as 
proof  of  radicalism.  That  is  why  Cleveland's  dictum 
that  "  a  public  office  is  a  public  trust  "  attracted  national 
attention.  It  was  a  new  note.  But  in  neither  of  Cleve- 
land's terms  did  he  do  anything  to  improve  the  condition 
of  the  American  people.  They  were  as  poor  when  he 
finally  left  office  as  they  were  when  he  first  took  office. 
Moreover,  there  was  good  reason  for  their  poverty. 
Cleveland  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  betray  them.  He 
sold  bonds  in  secret  to  Mr.  Morgan  to  the  great  profit 
of  Mr.  Morgan  and  the  great  loss  of  the  American 
people.  He  hurled  troops  against  strikers  and  placed 
thousands  of  deputy  United  States  Marshals  under  the 
orders  of  railway  managers  who  were  trying  to  prevent 
their  employees  from  obtaining  living  wages. 

Benjamin  Harrison  was  never  regarded  as  a  radical, 
but  in  1888  he  was  regarded  as  an  improvement  upon 
Cleveland.  After  Plarrison  had  done  nothing  for  four 
years,  Cleveland  was  believed  to  be  an  improvement  upon 
Harrison.  Four  years  more  of  Cleveland  were  enough 
to  send  iiim  out  of  office  with  the  condemnation  of  every- 
body but  the  grafters  in  both  parties. 

Business  revived  somewhat  under  the  Presidency  of 
McKinley,  but  the  revival  was  not  so  much  due  to  any- 
thing that  Mr.  McKinley  did  as  it  was  to  the  fact  that 
the  time  had  come  for  the  pendulum  to  swing  back  from 
panic  to  "  prosperity."  Nor  did  the  revival  solve  the 
problem  of  poverty.  Nothing  was  settled  because  nf)th- 
ing  was  changed.     Not  so  many  men  were  denied  the 


132        TI-IE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

right  to  work,  but  those  who  worked  toiled  only  for  a 
"  full  dinner  pail."  They  paid  all  they  received  to  live 
poorly.  Only  their  employers  fared  wonderfully  well. 
For  them  there  was  real  prosperity. 

Which  brings  us  to  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  his  Progressive 
party. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  was  the  first  President  of  the  type  that 
is  now  regarded  as  "  radical."  He  held  office  seven 
years  and  a  half.  He  had  "  a  perfectly  corking  time." 
He  did  business  with  all  of  the  bosses,  including  Hanna, 
Quay,  Cannon,  Payne,  Aldrich  and  a  host  of  others,  but 
we  have  his  word  for  it  that  his  intentions  were  good. 
Maybe  they  were.  For  the  sake  of  argument,  let  it  be 
granted  that  they  were.  Let  it  be  conceded  that  he  be- 
lieved the  things  he  did  would  enable  the  average  man 
to  earn  a  living  more  certainly  and  more  easily.  Still, 
is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  things  he  did  failed  to  accomplish 
what  he  expected  they  would? 

Is  it  not  a  fact  that  it  is  to-day  more  difficult  for  most 
persons  to  make  a  living  than  it  was  when  Mr.  Roose- 
velt became  President? 

Is  not  the  cost  of  living  vastly  more? 

Are  not  more  millions  of  men  out  of  work? 

Is  there  not  greater  uncertainty  with  regard  to  con- 
tinuity of  employment? 

Are  not  more  men,  women  and  children  living  upon 
the  hunger  line,  or  close  to  it? 

Each  of  these  questions  must  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  Mr.  Roosevelt,  himself,  would  not  dare, 
even  if  he  were  so  inclined,  to  answer  them  in  the  nega- 
tive. The  facts  are  notorious  and  scandalous.  They 
are  scandalous  because  poverty,  in  this  rich  country,  is 
unnecessary. 

Yet,  Mr.   Roosevelt  is  not  wholly  to  blame.     He  is 


,WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    133 

only  partly  to  blame.  A  President  is  not  the  govern- 
ment. He  is  only  part  of  the  government.  As  part  of 
the  government,  Mr.  Roosevelt  advocated  measures, 
some  of  which  were  enacted  into  law,  that  he  believed 
would  do  good.  Subsequent  events  have  proved  that 
he  was  in  error.  The  measures  he  believed  would  help 
have  not  helped.  If  they  had  helped,  times  would  be 
better  than  they  were,  instead  of  worse. 

Therefore,  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  these 
questions : 

"  //  Air.  Roosevelt,  during  seven  and  one-half  years 
in  the  White  House,  coidd  do  nothing  to  make  the  con- 
ditions of  the  average  man's  life  easier,  how  long  should 
we  have  to  elect  him  President  in  order  to  give  him 
time  to  do  something  worth  while F 

"  If  we  were  to  elect  him  for  life,  are  you  sure  that 
the  rest  of  his  lifetime  would  he  long  enough? 

"  In  any  event,  are  you  prepared  to  wait  so  long  to 
behelpedf" 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  friends,  following  this  thought,  re- 
ply that  he  is  not  the  same  man  that  he  was  when  he 
left  the  White  House;  that  he  has  grown,  with  vision 
enlarged. 

No,  he  is  not  the  same  man.  The  American  people 
have  forced  him  into  the  advocacy  of  some  things. 
They  have  forced  even  some  Socialist  measures  upon 
him.  The  initiative,  the  referendum  and  the  recall  are 
Socialist  measures.  For  a  good  many  years,  Mr.  Roose- 
velt tried  to  damn  them  with  faint  praise  combined 
with  a  medley  of  doubts  and  strangling  provisos.  But 
after  these  measures,  in  one  winter,  fought  their  way 
into  every  state  capitol  west  of  the  Mississippi,  as  well 
as  into  some  of  the  state  capitols  of  the  East,  Mr.  Roose- 
velt saw  a  great  light.     Then  he  became  in  favor  of  them. 


134        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

When  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  President  he  had  nothing" 
to  say  against  the  courts.  He  criticised  individual 
judges,  as  he  criticised  Judge  Anderson  of  Indianapolis, 
whom  he  called  "  a  damned  jackass  and  a  crook."  But 
Judge  Anderson,  be  it  remembered,  had  just  decided 
against  Mr.  Roosevelt  in  the  libel  suit  that  he  brought 
against  several  newspapers  because  of  articles  reflecting 
upon  the  part  played  by  himself  and  others  in  the  ac- 
quisition of  the  Panama  Canal  property. 

Now  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  convinced  that  our  judicial  sys- 
tem is  in  need  of  reform.  In  reaching  this  opinion, 
however,  he  is  somewhat  late.  The  courts  are  no  longer 
popular.  The  people  have  not  yet  begun  to  strike  at 
them,  but  they  are  watching  them  out  of  the  corners  of 
their  eyes.  Mr.  Roosevelt  senses  the  situation  and  re- 
sponds with  a  proposition  to  give  the  people  the  right  to 
recall,  or  set  aside,  the  decisions  of  state  courts.  He 
says  nothing  about  giving  the  people  the  right  to  recall 
the  decisions  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court, 
though  he  must  know  this  court  is  the  chief  judicial 
offender.  Yet  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  Mr.  Roose- 
velt, in  belatedly  joining  the  fight  against  the  tyrannical 
power  of  the  courts,  is  but  giving  proof  of  the  greatness 
to  which  he  has  grown  and  the  increased  fearlessness 
with  which  he  fights. 

The  women  of  the  country  have  forced  Mr.  Roose- 
velt into  the  advocacy  of  woman  suffrage.  Mr.  Roose- 
velt used  to  say  that  Mrs.  Roosevelt  was  "  only  luke- 
warm "  toward  woman  suffrage,  and  that  his  interest  in 
it  was  the  same.  After  the  women  of  California  gained 
the  ballot,  and  Mr.  Roosevelt  again  became  a  candidate 
for  the  Presidency,  he  changed  from  "  lukewarm  "  to 
very  hot.  From  that  moment,  woman  suffrage  became 
not  only  a  right,  but  a  necessity.     Of  course,  the  fact 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    135 

that  women  vote  in  several  western  states  that  he  hoped 
to  carry  had  no  part  whatever  in  changing  his  opinion. 
Mr.  Roosevelt  is  not  that  kind  of  a  man. 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  1912  platform  —  or  "contract  with 
the  people,"  as  he  calls  it  —  bristles  with  new  devices  and 
new  plans  for  the  public  good.  Some  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
plans  would  probably  help  a  little  —  provided  he  could 
get  a  Congress  that  would  put  them  into  effect,  and 
courts  that  would  declare  them  constitutional.  Mr. 
Lincoln  probably  could  have  helped  the  black  slaves  a 
little  if  he  had  made  it  a  legal  obligation  upon  slave  own- 
ers to  provide  each  negro,  semi-annually,  with  a  red  neck- 
tie and  a  paste  diamond.  Mr.  Lincoln  might  have  gone 
even  further  and  provided  that  each  negro  should  be  sup- 
plied, during  the  water-melon  season,  with  all  the  melons 
he  could  eat.  Instead,  he  wrote  the  Emancipation  Proc- 
lamation. 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  present  political  program  is  by  no 
means  an  emancipation  proclamation  to  the  American 
people.  It  unties  no  knots,  nor  cuts  any.  It  bristles 
with  Socialists'  phrases,  but  it  does  not  bristle  with  So- 
cialist remedies.  "  This  country  belongs  to  the  people 
who  inhabit  it " — an  assertion  that  appears  in  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  platform  —  is  a  Socialist  phrase.  But  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  method  of  giving  the  people  their  own  is  not 
Socialistic.  The  Socialist  method  is  to  give  it  to  them. 
tMr.  Roosevelt's  method  is  to  appoint  "  strong  "  commis- 
'sions  to  regulate  the  country  that  the  people  own,  but 
do  not  control  or  enjoy.  Again  and  again  in  his  plat- 
form Mr.  Roosevelt  fervently  advocates  a  "  strong " 
commission  to  do  this  or  do  that. 

If  the  word  "  strong  "  in  a  platform  were  sufficient  to 
make  a  commission  "  strong  "  in  action  we  might  expect 
the  commissions  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  advocates  to  be  as 


I3'6        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

strong  as  any  commission  can  be  that  is  trying  to  regu- 
late other  people's  property. 

But  we  do  not  believe  the  word  "  strong  "  in  a  plat- 
form makes  a  commission  strong.  Mr.  Roosevelt,  al- 
ways preaching  strenuosity,  nevertheless  appointed,  dur- 
ing his  Presidency,  some  exceedingly  poor  officials. 

Since  Mr.  Roosevelt,  the  originator  of  "  strong  "  com- 
missions as  a  cure  for  the  poverty  that  is  produced  by 
robbery,  failed  as  he  did,  what  should  we  expect  from 
such  commissions  if  they  were  appointed  by  Presidents 
of  the  ordinary  Wall  Street  stripe? 

Simmered  down,  Mr.  Roosevelt's  Progressive  Party 
stands  simply  for  this:  We  are  still  to  have  trusts  and 
tariffs,  but  only  such  trusts  and  tariffs  as  Mr.  Roosevelt 
wants.  We  are  still  to  have  a  master  class  who  own  all 
of  the  industries  and  a  servant  class  who  do  all  of  the 
work,  but  masters  and  servants  must  conduct  themselves 
as  Mr.  Roosevelt  provides.  Masters  may  still  hold  out 
for  profits  and  servants  may  die  for  lack  of  opportunity 
to  work,  but  so  long  as  Mr.  Roosevelt,  at  Armageddon,  is 
"  fighting  for  the  Lord,"  what  of  it? 

Such  is  not  Mr.  Roosevelt's  reasoning,  but  it  might  as 
well  be.  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Wilson,  like  all  other 
"  radical "  politicians,  are  incapable  of  rendering  any 
great  service  to  the  American  people  for  the  simple 
reason  that  they  do  not  strike  at  the  great  wrong.  The 
great  wrong  is  the  ownership,  by  a  small  class,  of  the 
great  class's  means  of  life.  A  people  who  cannot  sup-' 
port  themselves  without  asking  the  permission  of  others 
are  little  more  than  slaves.     We  are  such  a  people. 

"  Radicals"  who  promise,  if  given  power,  to  free  us, 
only  mock  us.  Such  gentlemen  are  not  radicals  at  all. 
The  word  "  radical "  is  derived  from  a  Greek  word 
meaning  "  root."     A  real  radical  is  one  who  goes  to  the 


WHY  SOCIALISTS  OPPOSE  "  RADICALS  "    137 

roots  of  things.  But  radicals  like  Mr.  Roosevelt  and 
Mr.  Wilson  go  to  the  roots  of  nothing. 

The  only  way  to  go  to  the  root  of  anything  is  to  go 
to  it. 

Lincoln  went  to  the  root  of  the  chattel  slavery  ques- 
tion. 

When  he  had  finished,  the  chattel  slavery  question  was 
no  longer  a  question  —  it  was  a  corpse.  After  wasting 
years  of  his  life  as  an  anti-slavery  "  radical  "  he  became 
an  anti-slavery  revolutionist  and  destroyed  slavery. 
Lincoln,  during  the  last  two  years  of  his  life,  became  a 
real  radical.  A  real  radical  and  a  revolutionist  are  but 
different  names  for  the  same  thing. 

The  working  class  is  suffering  from  robbery.  The 
working  class  has  always  suffered  from  robbery. 
Never  has  there  been  a  time  when  a  little  crowd  of  graft- 
ers were  not  feeding  upon  the  workers. 

In  the  beginning,  the  working  class  were  held  as 
chattel  slaves,  the  only  possible  cure  for  which  was  the 
utter  destruction  of  chattel  slavery. 

Then  the  workers  became  the  serfs  of  feudal  lords, 
the  only  possible  cure  for  which  was  the  destruction  of 
feudalism. 

Now  the  toilers  are  robbed  by  the  private  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production,  the  only  possible  cure  for 
which  is  the  destruction  of  such  ownership  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  public  ownership  through  the  agency  of  gov- 
ernment. 

No  tinkering  will  do.  Tinkering  could  not  and  difl 
not  settle  the  white  man's  or  the  black  man's  slavery 
question.  Nothing  but  the  absolute  destruction  of  the 
capitalist  system  can  remove  the  poverty,  the  ignorance, 
the  crime  and  the  vice  that  are  inevitable  products  of  the 
system. 


1 38        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

But  do  not  expect  capitalists  to  remove  this  system  for 
yon.     They  will  not. 

You  never  saw  a  tiger  feed  its  prey.  You  never  saw 
a  burglar  mend  a  victim's  roof.  You  may  see  both  of 
these  sights  some  day.  H  you  should,  you  may,  perhaps, 
prepare  yourself  to  behold  the  more  marvelous  spectacle 
of  the  capitalist  class  financing  the  campaign  of  a  genuine 
radical  who  is  bent  upon  taking  the  capitalist  class  off 
your  back. 

But  until  you  see  a  tiger  feeding  Its  prey,  you  may  well 
ask  yourself  whether  "  radicals  "  whose  campaigns  are 
financed  by  great  capitalists  are  radical  enough  to  do  you 
any  good. 

Certainly  one  side  or  the  other  is  always  doomed  to 
disappointment;  either  the  capitalists  who  put  up  the 
money  or  the  workers  who  put  up  the  votes.  The  cap- 
italists are  still  doing  quite  well.     Are  you? 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   TRUTH    ABOUT   THE    COAL    QUESTION 

ALMOST  anyone  can  make  anybody  believe  anything 
that  is  not  so.  It  is  only  the  truth  that  makes  poor 
headway  in  this  world.  Our  national  motto  seems  to  be : 
"  When  there  are  no  more  blunderers  or  liars  to  be  heard, 
let  us  listen  to  common  sense." 

The  anthracite  coal  situation  is  a  case  in  point.  So 
long  ago  as  1902  this  situation  had  become  maddening. 
As  the  result  of  a  prolonged  strike  to  obtain  living  wages 
for  the  miners,  the  country,  at  the  beginning  of  winter, 
was  threatened  with  a  coal  famine.  So  serious  was  the 
situation  that  a  "  Get-Coal  Conference  "  was  held  at  De- 
troit. Among  the  delegates  were  Victor  L.  Berger,  the 
first  Socialist  congressman,  and  a  number  of  other  So- 
cialists. These  Socialist  delegates  told  the  conference 
what  to  do.     They  said  : 

"  Go  into  politics.  Make  the  governmental  ownership 
of  the  coal  mines  and  the  railroads  a  political  matter. 
Take  over  the  ownership  of  these  mines  and  railroads 
and  operate  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  rather  tlian 
for  the  benefit  of  millionaires.  Do  that  and  you  will 
have  solved  your  coal  problem." 

But  that  was  the  truth,  mind  you.  As  truth,  it  had  no 
chance  of  acceptance  at  that  time.  Truth  never  has  a 
chance  the  first  time,  the  second  time  or  the  third  time. 
Truth  has  attained  its  great  reputation  for  rising  every 
time  it  is  crushed  only  because  it  has  been  so  often 
crushed. 

139 


I40        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

And  the  truth  that  these  men  spoke  in  Detroit  years 
ago  was  forthwith  crushed,  not  only  in  Detroit,  but  all 
over  the  country.  What  was  the  use  of  believing?  Were 
there  not  plenty  of  blunderers  about?  Were  there  not 
plenty  of  blind  alleys  in  which  to  go? 

Indeed,  there  were.  The  people  went  into  one  of  them. 
Or,  rather,  they  remained  in  the  blind  alley  in  which  they 
had  long  been.  That  was  the  blind  alley  of  private  own- 
ership of  the  coal  mines  and  railroads.  Plenty  of  blind 
men  could  see  a  delightful  opening  at  the  end  of  this  blind 
alley.  They  were  very  sure  that  it  led  somewhere.  It 
must  lead  somewhere.  Certainly,  no  great  difficulty 
could  be  encountered  in  managing  these  millionaires. 
The  Inter-State  Commerce  Commission  would  fix  them 
if  nothing  else  could  fix  them.  If  the  Inter-State  Com- 
merce Commission  should  prove  too  weak  for  the  task, 
the  courts  would  not  prove  too  weak.  At  any  rate,  there 
was  no  danger  ahead.  It  was  entirely  safe  to  leave  the  na- 
tion's coal  supply  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men  who  had  al- 
ready abundantly  proved  their  disinclination  to  treat 
either  their  employees  or  the  public  honestly. 

For  ten  straight  years  thereafter  we  fought  the  Coal 
Trust  in  the  courts.  We  enjoined  it,  we  indicted  it,  we 
prosecuted  it.  To  what  purpose?  To  no  purpose.  In 
1 912,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  brought  an  end 
to  the  proceedings  by  handing  down  a  decision  that  was 
said  to  be  a  "  great  victory  "  for  the  Government.  But 
it  was  one  of  those  great  anti-trust  victories  that  do  not 
hurt  the  trusts  nor  help  the  people.  This  "  victory  "  did 
not  hurt  the  Coal  Trust.  The  price  of  coal  did  not  go 
down  a  nickel.  On  the  contrary,  the  prices  of  coal  road 
stocks  immediately  w^nt  higher.  Wall  Street  knew  the 
decision  would  not  interrupt  the  Coal  Trust  in  its  plun- 
dering, and  backed  its  opinion  with  its  money.     Wall 


TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  COAL  QUESTION     141 

Street  quickly  realized  what  we  have  not  yet  fully  realized 
—  that  the  court  had  prohibited  only  a  certain  method 
of  stealing,  while  leaving  the  trust  free  to  adopt  any  one 
of  a  hundred  other  methods,  each  of  which  is  as  suitable 
to  its  purposes  as  the  method  that  has  been  put  under  the 
ban. 

The  trust  lawyers  quickly  juggled  out  one  of  the  hun~^ 
Jdred  other  methods  of  stealing  and  the  robbery  of  the 
people  continued  as  if  there  had  been  no  decision  by  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court.  Immediately,  there  was 
a  loud  demand  from  the  "  radical "  press  that  the  anti- 
trust law  be  so  amended  that  it  would  prohibit  the  new 
form  of  robbery.  Again  the  Socialists  repeated  their 
W'arning  against  reliance  upon  laws  that  seek  to  regulate 
trusts.  Again  the  Socialists  urged  the  people  to  settle 
the  coal  question  for  all  time  by  owning  and  operating 
the  coal  mines  and  the  railroads  that  carry  the  coal  to 
the  people.  Between  the  advice  given  by  Socialists  and 
the  advice  given  by  radicals,  there  was  all  the  difference 
that  there  is  between  night  and  day.  The  "  radicals  " 
advised  the  people  to  leave  the  coal  in  the  hands  of  a  few 
multi-millionaires  and  then  fight  in  the  courts  to  get  it 
back.  The  Socialists  assured  the  people  that  if  they 
would  take  possession  of  their  own  coal  they  would  not  be 
compelled  to  fight  to  get  it  back.  But  the  advice  given 
by  the  Socialists  contained  too  much  truth  to  find  ready 
acceptance.  There  being  not  fewer  than  a  hundred  ways 
in  which  the  trust  could  rob  the  people,  it  seemed  so  much 
more  reasonable  to  let  the  trust  try  these  various  ways, 
one  by  one,  and  prosecute  the  trust  gentlemen  for  each 
separate  form  of  robbery.  Ten  years  were  required  to 
"  win  "  the  anti-trust  case  that  was  finally  decided  in 
191 2,  so  we  shall  require  at  least  1,000  years  to  obtain 
supreme  court  decisions  prohibiting  a  hundred  different 


142        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

inclhods  of  Coal  Trust  robbery.  But  good,  able  "  radi- 
cal "  gentlemen  assured  the  people  that  the  way  to  kill 
the  Coal  Trust  was  to  choke  it  with  court  decisions  and 
the  people  believed  what  they  were  told.  Almost  always 
the  people  believe  what  they  are  told  unless  what  they  are 
told  is  true.  It  is  only  the  truth  that  must  fight  its  way 
in  this  world.  So  many  powerful,  selfish  persons  are  al- 
ways eager  to  foist  the  lie  that  feathers  their  nests. 
Truth  is  always  besmirched  by  those  whom  it  would  de- 
stroy, and  too  often  despised  by  those  whom  it  would 
help. 

Thus  we  have  a  naked  view  of  two  classes  of  men  - — 
the  anthracite  coal  operators  and  their  victims.  The  coal 
operators  are  conscienceless  robbers.  They  hold  within 
the  hollows  of  their  hands  the  anthracite  coal  supply  of 
this  country.  They  own  it  or  control  it  as  you  own  or 
control  a  gas  range  that  you  have  bought  or  rented.  The 
coal  supply  of  this  country  is  their  property.  And  though 
you  must  draw  upon  it  or  freeze  in  winter,  you  cannot 
have  a  pound  of  coal  except  at  their  price.  And  their 
price  is  always  all  they  believe  they  can  get  out  of  you 
without  a  riot.  The  cost  of  production  does  not  matter. 
Your  necessities  do  not  matter.  They  want  all  they  can 
get. 

These  naked  millionaires  are  not  attractive  persons. 
Who  would  be  an  attractive  person  if  Jie  had  their 
power?  Are  you  so  sure  you  would  be  an  attractive 
person  if  you  had  their  power?  Do  not  be  too  sure. 
Give  any  man  such  an  opportunity  to  squeeze  millions 
out  of  a  people  and  it  is  very  likely  that  he  will  squeeze 
them.  There  is  little  or  nothing  in  this  "  good  man," 
"  bad  man  "  theory.  The  blackest  Coal  Trust  magnate 
is  just  what  you  and  the  Coal  Trust  have  made  him.  If 
anything,  you  are  more  to  blame  than  he.     He  gets  all 


TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  COAL  QUESTION     143 

of  his  power  from  the  laws.  And  the  men  whom  you 
elect  make  the  laws.  They  make  the  laws  which  say 
that  a  few  men  —  or,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  one 
man  —  may  own  all  of  the  anthracite  coal  mines  in  the 
country. 

These  laws  are  certainly  very  comfortable  for  the  Coal 
Trust  gentlemen.  If  you  are  satisfied,  they  are.  If  you 
don't  move  to  change  them,  they  will  never  move  to 
change  them.  But,  if  you  are  fit  to  cast  a  ballot,  you 
know  that  the  present  conditions  can  never  be  changed 
until  the  laws  that  made  the  conditions  are  changed. 

Let  us  now  take  a  close  view  of  the  Coal  Trust  vic- 
tims. You  are  one  of  them.  You  are  tired  of  the  Coal 
Trust.  You  have  no  sort  of  notion  that  it  is  anytliing  ex- 
cept the  robber  concern  that  everybody  believes  it  to  be. 
Yon  would  be  much  better  pleased  if  the  government 
owned  the  mines.  You  would  be  still  better  pleased  if 
the  government  owned  not  only  the  mines  but  the  rail- 
roads that  carry  coal  from  the  mines.  You  know  that  in 
the  Panama  Canal  Zone,  where  the  government  sells  all 
of  the  supplies,  the  cost  of  living  is  much  less  than  it 
is  here.  You  believe  all  of  this  and  more.  But  wliat 
are  you  doing  to  translate  your  belief  into  accomplished 
fact? 

You  are  doing  nothing.  Tlie  only  way  in  which  you 
can  translate  tliis  beh"cf  into  accomplished  fact  is  to  ex- 
press your  belief  in  political  action.  You  must  vote  for 
that  which  you  believe.  You  must  support  a  political 
party  that  advocates  the  ownership  by  the  government  of 
the  coal  mines  and  the  railroads.  If  you  vote  for  a  party 
that  believes  in  permitting  the  ownership  of  the  coal 
mines  and  the  railroarls  to  remain  where  it  is  you  are  vot- 
ing for  the  Coal  Trust.  TIow  long  do  you  believe  it  will 
take  you  to  beat  the  Coal  Trust  by  voting  for  the  Coal 


144        TPIE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Trust?     Do  you  know  of  any  way  in  which  the  Coal 
Trust  can  be  beaten  except  by  voting  against  it? 

Of  course,  the  newspapers  that  you  read  will  tell  you 
there  are  other  ways  of  beating  the  robber  Coal  Trust  tlian 
by  voting  against  it.  They  will  tell  you  that  the  Coal 
Trust  can  be  "  regulated  "  or  indicted  and  convicted  into 
decency.  Ask  your  newspapers  what  makes  them  think  so. 
We  have  many  great  trusts  in  this  country  —  has  a  single 
one  of  them  ever  been  regulated  into  decency?  Have 
they  been  so  ruthlessly  pursued  in  court  that  they  were 
willing  to  be  decent  ?  You  know  the  answer.  You  know 
there  is  not  a  decent  great  trust  in  the  country.  You 
know  that  every  attempt  to  drive  them  into  decency  has 
failed.  Yet  your  newspapers  have  the  impudence  to  tell 
you  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  government  should 
own  the  anthracite  mines  and  the  railroads. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  amazing  situa- 
tion. Here  we  have  in  this  country  two  sharply  con- 
trasted classes  of  opinion. 

One  opinion  is  that  institutions  like  the  Coal  Trust 
should  be  regulated  or  destroyed  —  compelled  to  go  back 
to  competition. 

The  other  opinion  is  that  institutions  like  the  Coal  Trust 
can  neither  be  regulated  nor  compelled  to  break  up  into 
small  parts  and  compete. 

The  men  who  hold  the  first  opinion  can  not  point  to  a 
single  instance  wherein  their  belief  has  been  justified  by 
events.  The  men  who  hold  the  second  opinion  have  only  , 
common  sense  with  which  to  back  up  their  assertion  that, 
if  the  government  owned  the  coal  mines  and  the  rail- 
roads, Coal  Trust  magnates  and  railway  multi-million- 
aires could  not  rob  us. 

But  in  this  instance,  as  in  all  others  where  the  robbery 
of  the  many  by  the  few  is  concerned,  truth  is  put  upon  the 
defensive.     The  grafters,  as  they  might  naturally  be  ex- 


TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  COAL  QUESTION     145 

pected  to  do,  not  only  shower  upon  the  truth-tellers  their 
scorn  and  derision,  but  even  the  people  who  are  being 
robbed  are  doubtful  or  suspicious.  They  are  not  so  cer- 
tain that  if  robbers  be  stopped  robbery  will  be  stopped. 
They  suspect  the  statement  that,  if  nothing  be  taken  from 
something,  something  will  remain  untouched.  They 
want  us  to  prove,  not  only  that  two  and  two  make  four, 
but  that  nothing  from  four  leaves  four. 

But  they  don't  ask  the  "  regulation  "  send-them-to-jail 
gentlemen  to  prove  anything.  When  these  grafters  say 
two  from  four  leave  four  nobody  expresses  a  doubt.  Ev- 
erybody is  ready  to  believe  that  that  which  has  never  been 
done  can  be  easily  done.  Few  are  ready  to  believe  that 
that  which  might  easily  be  done  can  be  done  at  all. 

The  public  attitude  toward  the  Coal  Trust  and  the 
railroads  constitutes  possibly  the  only  exception  to  this 
rule.  The  Coal  Trust  and  the  railroads  have  so  wronged 
the  people  that  the  people  would  doubtless  welcome  their 
ownership  by  the  government.  H  the  people  were  to  vote 
directly  upon  the  question :  "  Shall  the  government  take 
over  the  ownership  of  the  anthracite  coal  mines  and  the 
railroads?"  it  is  probable  that  the  affirmative  majority 
would  be  not  less  than  two  to  one.  Yet,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  coal  question  can  be  solved  only  with 
ballots,  the  Socialists  are  the  only  ones  who  seem  ever  to 
try  with  their  ballots  to  solve  it.  The  rest  of  the  people, 
while  opposed  to  the  conditions  that  exist,  vote  the  tickets 
/of  parties  that  are  pledged  to  maintain  the  conditions 
that  exist. 

Every  man  who  voted  for  Wilson,  Roosevelt  or  Taft 
voted  to  keep  the  coal  supply  of  the  nation  in  private 
hands  and  the  railroads  in  private  hands. 

Those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Wilson  voted  to  "  destroy  " 
the  Coal  Trust  and  "  send  the  trust  magnates  to  prison." 

Those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Roosevelt  voted  to  permit  the 


i4<5        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Coal  Trust  to  continue  to  own  the  nation's  coal  supply, 
provided  only  that  it  be  "  good."  Otherwise,  a  "  strong  " 
commission  appointed  by  Mr.  Roosevelt  would  proceed  to 
administer  "  social  justice." 

Those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Taft  voted  to  break  the  Coal 
Trust  into  bits. 

Candidly,  let  us  ask,  did  either  of  these  plans  suit  any- 
body? Is  there  anybody  who  would  not  have  vastly  pre- 
ferred tliat  the  government  take  over  the  ownership  of  the 
anthracite  coal  mines  and  operate  them  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people?  A  plan  of  governmental  ownership  and  op- 
eration would  have  settled  the  coal  question  instantly.  A 
government  that  can  dig  the  Panama  Canal  can  dig 
coal. 

But  there  is  no  likelihood  whatever  that  Mr.  Wilson's 
plan  to  destroy  the  Coal  Trust  and  all  other  trusts  will 
settle  the  coal  question  at  all.  The  Coal  Trust  cares 
nothing  for  courts.  Mr.  Hearst  attacked  the  Coal  Trust 
more  vigorously  in  the  courts  than  any  President  ever  at- 
tacked any  trusts  in  the  courts.  Mr.  Hearst  came  out  of 
court  absolutely  empty-handed.  He  gained  a  few  paper 
victories,  but  he  gained  no  substantial  victory.  He  never 
halted  for  a  moment  the  upward  flight  of  the  price  of 
coal. 

Mr.  Wilson,  if  he  try  ever  so  hard,  can  do  no  better. 
So  long  as  the  principle  of  the  private  ownership  of  the 
lantliracite  coal  fields  is  admitted  —  and  Mr.  Wilson  ad- 
jmits  this  principle  as  fully  as  does  anybody  —  nothing 
can  be  done.  Corporations  can  be  split  up  into  bits,  it  is 
true,  as  the  Standard  Oil  Company  was  split  up,  but  what 
do  such  splits  amount  to?  Absolutely  nothing.  The 
ownership  is  not  changed.  The  dominating  owners  con- 
tinue to  handle  the  pieces  as  they  formerly  handled  the 
whole. 


TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  COAL  QUESTION     147 

Suppose  Mr.  Wilson  try  to  enforce  the  criminal  clause 
of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  law  and  put  the  coal  magnates 
into  jail  ?  Suppose  he  try  to  compel  the  component  parts 
of  the  Coal  Trust  actually  to  compete  with  each  other. 
What  will  happen? 

This  will  happen.  The  component  parts  of  the  Coal 
Trust  will  refuse  to  compete.  The  men  who  are  at  the 
head  of  the  coal  companies  are  business  associates  of  long 
standing.  They  know  each  other  well,  and  they  know 
well  that  none  of  them  can  make  any  money  by  fighting 
any  of  the  others.  So,  when  one  gentleman  announces 
a  schedule  of  coal  prices,  none  of  the  others  will  undercut 
him.  All  of  the  other  coal  companies  will  announce  the 
same  prices,  because  the  owners  of  each  company  will 
also  be  the  owners  of  all  the  other  companies. 

Did  you  ever  stop  to  consider  what  position  the  gov- 
ernment will  then  be  in?  Will  not  its  hands  be  tied? 
Can  the  government  go  into  court  and  demand  that  the 
other  companies  cut  their  prices?  Suppose  the  other 
companies  say  they  cannot  cut  their  prices  without  losing 
money  ?  Suppose  the  other  companies  say  nothing  at  all, 
except :  "  This  coal  belongs  to  us.  We  have  quite  as 
much  right  to  fix  our  own  price  upon  it  as  has  the  govern- 
ment to  fix  its  own  price  upon  postage  stamps.  That 
other  coal  companies  have  fixed  the  same  price  we  have 
is  no  more  the  government's  business  than  it  is  because 
several  grocers  fix  the  same  price  upon  sugar,  bacon,  tea 
or  coffee." 

It  will  then  be  up  to  the  government  to  prove  that  the 
idcnticality  of  prices  is  the  result  of  conspiracy.  If  con- 
spiracy cannot  be  proved,  the  government  can  do  nothing. 
In  such  a  case,  the  government  would  never  be  able  to 
prove  conspiracy.  The  coal  operators  would  not  con- 
spire over  the  telephone,  or  on  the  street  corners.     There 


148        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

would  be  little  for  tlieni  to  conspire  about,  anyway.  All 
of  them  would  be  financially  interested  in  all  of  the  com- 
panies, precisely  as  Mr.  Rockefeller  is  financially  inter- 
ested in  all  of  the  constituent  companies  of  the  Standard 
Oil  Company.  The  matter  of  price-fixing  would  proba- 
bly be  left  to  the  dominating  personality  of  the  group, 
precisely  as  it  is  now  left,  more  or  less,  to  the  strongest 
man  among  them.  And,  the  prices  he  fixed  would  speed- 
ily become  the  prices  of  all. 

Thus  do  we  perceive  a  peculiar  feature  of  the  human 
mind.  Individually,  we  know  what  we  should  like  to  do 
about  the  Coal  Trust  and  the  railroads.  We  know  we 
should  like  to  own  and  operate  them.  But  collectively  we 
know  no  such  thing.  We  do  not  get  together.  We  act 
as  if  that  which  each  of  us  believes  were  believed  by  no 
other  than  himself.  We  are  like  butter  that  will  not 
"  gather  "  or  bees  that  will  not  "  hive." 

There  is  every  reason  why  we  who  are  paying  out- 
rageous prices  for  coal  should  get  together  on  the  matter 
of  public  ownership.  The  cost  of  mining  coal  is  less  than 
$2  a  ton.  In  1902  Mr,  George  F.  Baer  —  the  "Divine 
Right "  gentleman  —  testified  that  the  cost  was  $2,  and 
some  other  witnesses  testified  that  it  was  as  low  as  $1.43 
a  ton.  Probably  no  one  but  the  coal  magnates  know 
exactly  what  the  cost  is,  but  now  and  then  a  fact  leaks 
out  that  is  illuminating.  Such  a  fact  was  discovered  in 
191 2  by  a  staff  correspondent  whom  the  New  York 
World  sent  into  the  coal  regions. 

The  World  man  found  that  the  Coal  Trust  sells  coal 
to  its  employees  at  a  reduced  price.  This  is  not  philan- 
thropy, because  if  the  Coal  Trust  charged  full  price  for 
coal,  it  would  soon  be  compelled  to  pay  the  miners  more 
wages  —  they  live  like  dogs,  and  not  much  more  can  be 
taken  from  them  until  it  is  first  given  to  them.     At  any 


TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  COAL  QUESTION     149 

rate,  the  World  man  found  that  the  price  of  coal,  to  min- 
ers, is  only  $2  a  ton. 

Now,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  Coal  Trust  is  not 
losing  any  money  on  the  $2  coal  that  it  is  selling  to  its 
employees.  It  is  more  likely  that  it  is  making  a  nickel 
or  two.  At  any  rate,  $2  a  ton  may  be  considered  the  ex- 
treme limit  of  the  cost  of  mining  a  ton  of  anthracite. 

Whenever  the  people  of  this  country  are  ready  to  listen 
to  the  truth  about  the  coal  question,  the  retail  price  of  coal 
can  quickly  be  more  than  cut  in  two.  The  actual  cost  of 
mining  coal  and  transporting  it  to  any  point  within  500 
miles  of  the  mines  probably  is  not  more  than  $3  a  ton. 
If  the  people,  through  the  government,  owned  and  oper- 
ated the  mines,  the  government  could  afford  to  sell  coal 
at  this  price,  plus  the  local  cost  of  delivery.  The  wages 
of  the  miners  could  be  doubled  —  as  they  should  be  — 
and  coal  could  still  be  sold  by  the  government  at  $5  a 
ton.  In  any  calculation  about  the  coal  problem,  the  min- 
ers should  not  be  forgotten.  The  Coal  Trust  will  never 
take  care  of  them,  but  they  have  a  right  to  demand  that 
they  shall  be  taken  care  of. 

The  business  of  mining  coal  is  dangerous  and  disagree- 
able to  the  last  degree.  Coal  miners,  when  they  are  at 
work,  seldom  see  the  day.  They  go  from  the  night  of  the 
surface  to  the  night  of  the  mines.  They  breathe  such 
dust  as  never  blew  in  the  filthiest  street.  When  a  fall  of 
slate  comes  or  an  explosion  of  firedamp,  their  mangled 
bodies  are  all  that  is  left  for  their  weeping  widows  and 
orphans  at  the  mouth  of  the  mine.  If  they  escape  death 
by  accident,  they  cannot  escape  the  death  that  comes  from 
the  unhealth fulness  of  their  calling.  No  life  insurance 
company  wants  much  to  do  with  a  coal  miner  except  at 
the  highest  rates.  No  tuberculosis  exhibit  is  complete 
without  the  blackened  lungs  of  a  coal  miner  in  a  jar  of 


I50        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

alcohol.  There  is  nothing  for  a  coal  miner  when  he  is 
alive  but  a  cheerless  existence  of  the  greatest  drudgery  — 
and  nothing  for  iiini  Avhcn  he  is  dead  but  an  unmarked 
grave  on  the  hillside.  Yet  76,000  human  beings  thus 
spend  their  lives  in  the  antln-acite  coal  mines,  and  hun- 
dreds of  other  thousands  in  the  bituminous  mines.  All 
of  this  great  toll  of  human  misery  that  the  nation  may 
burn  coal. 

If  the  nation  could  not  get  along  without  coal,  there 
might  be  some  excuse  for  this  colossal  sacrifice.  Even 
then,  it  would  be  hard  for  those  who  might  be  compelled 
to  make  the  sacrifice  and,  if  we  were  to  be  fair  about  it, 
we  might  have  some  difficulty  in  determining  who  should 
go  to  the  mines  and  who  should  go  to  the  opera.  If  we 
were  to  be  fair  about  it,  perhaps  some  of  those  who  now 
go  to  the  opera  would  go  to  the  mines  sometimes.  But 
the  nation  could  easily  get  along  without  sending  any- 
body into  the  mines.  Water  power  and  fuel  oil  will  do 
everything  that  coal  is  now  doing. 

Please  consider  the  water  power  question.  In  a  report 
made  to  President  Taft  in  1912  by  Commissioner  of  Cor- 
porations Herbert  K.  Smith,  these  statements  appear: 

Steam  and  gas  engines  are  creating  in  this  country  ap- 
proximately 19,000,000  horsepower. 

Water  wheels,  in  this  country,  are  developing  6,000,000 
horsepower. 

The  water  power  of  this  country,  capable  of  develop- 
ment, is  approximately  19,000,000  horsepower. 

These  statements  mean  that  there  is  enough  undevel- 
oped water  power  in  this  country  to  more  than  take  the 
place  of  every  coal-burning  steam  engine.  This  water 
power,  if  converted  into  electricity,  would  do  everything 
that  steam  does  and  more.  It  would  run  machinery.  It 
would  light  streets.     It  would  heat  houses.     Moreover, 


TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  COAL  QUESTION     151 

the  water  power,  once  developed,  would  not  have  to  be 
dug  out  of  the  ground  every  year.  "  White  coal,"  as  the 
Italians  call  water  power,  is  mined  by  the  sun  and  thrown 
into  the  furnace  by  the  force  of  gravitation.  Raih'oads 
need  not  haul  it.  Nobody  need  deliver  it.  It  hauls  and 
delivers  itself. 

But  that  is  not  all.  If  there  were  not  an  ounce  of  water 
power  in  this  country,  still  we  should  not  be  dependent 
upon  coal  for  heat  and  power.  Oil  will  burn  quite  as 
well  as  coal  —  in  fact,  a  good  deal  better.  Dr.  Rudolph 
Diesel,  of  Munich,  in  19 12  declared  before  the  Institute 
of  Mechanical  Engineers  in  London  that  exhaustive  re- 
searches had  indicated  the  presence  of  as  much  oil  in  the 
globe  as  there  is  coal ;  that  new  oil  fields  were  constantly 
being  discovered,  Borneo,  Mexico  and  even  Egypt,  in 
addition  to  other  known  lands,  containing  great  fields; 
that  "  the  world's  production  of  crude  oil  had  increased 
three  and  a  half  times  as  rapidly  as  the  production  of 
coal,  and  that  the  ratio  of  increase  was  becoming  steadily 
greater." 

Why  tlien  do  we  continue  to  burn  coal  ?  For  the  same 
reason  that  we  continue  to  do  a  number  of  other  foolish 
things.  Because  we  do  not  manage  this  country  in  which 
we  liv^e.  The  men  who  are  managing  it  are  managing  it 
for  profit.  If  there  were  a  greater  profit  for  the  Coal 
Trust  in  switching  from  coal  to  water  power  or  oil  they 
would  switch  us  quickly  enough.  If  we  were  to  change 
to  oil,  it  would  be  a  simple  matter  to  lay  oi)  pipes  in  the 
streets  precisely  as  we  now  lay  water  and  gas  pipes,  and 
heat  our  houses  witli  oil  sprays  blown  into  our  furnaces 
with  jets  of  steam.  Certainly,  there  w^ould  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  heating  houses  from  a  central  heating  plant  that 
burned  oil.  Plenty  of  western  cities  have  such  central 
heating  plants  now  tliat  burn  coal.    And  the  idea  is  a  good 


152        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

one,  too.  The  central  plant  decreases  the  danger  of  fire, 
besides  doing  away  with  dust  and  the  necessity  of  shovel- 
ing coal  into  the  furnace  of  each  house. 

But  gentlemen  like  the  Coal  Trust  barons  figure  this 
way:  "We  have  a  certain  amount  of  money  invested 
here.  We  arc  looking  only  for  tlic  highest  rate  of  inter- 
est that  we  can  get  upon  our  investment.  We  might  serve 
the  people  better  if  we  were  to  turn  to  water-power  de- 
velopment or  the  burning  of  oil,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  we 
should  obtain  a  greater  rate  of  interest  upon  our  invest- 
ment. Certainly,  we  should  lose  a  lot  by  junking  our 
coal  mines,  as  we  should  be  compelled  to  do  if  we  were 
to  prove  their  worthlessness  —  so,  we'll  just  keep  on 
dealing  in  coal." 

And,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  through  their 
failure  to  "  get  together  "  politically  behind  some  party 
that  stands  for  what  they  all  want  —  the  people  of  the 
United  States  are  getting  the  worst  of  it. 

If  the  people  of  the  United  States  want  their  govern- 
ment —  which  is  actually  themselves,  though  they  do  not 
seem  to  know  it  —  if  the  people  of  the  United  States 
w^ant  their  government  to  take  over  and  to  operate  the  coal 
mines  solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  they  can  do  it  simply  by  standing  together  and 
talking  and  voting  for  what  they  want. 

In  the  meantime,  it  would  be  a  splendid  thing  for  the 
country  if  the  Coal  Trust  w^ould  increase  the  price  of  coal 
a  dollar  a  month  until  such  time  as  the  people  become 
enough  interested  in  their  own  problems  to  solve  them. 


CHAPTER  X 

DEATHBEDS   AND   DIVIDENDS 

STOCK  market  reports  do  not  show  a  relationship 
between  deathbeds  and  dividends.  Such  a  relation- 
ship exists,  however.  In  this  country,  many  are  made  to 
die  miserably  in  order  that  a  few  may  live  magnificently. 
Every  year,  more  than  half  a  million  human  beings  are 
compelled  to  die  in  order  that  a  few  thousands  may  make, 
every  year,  perhaps  half  a  billion  dollars.  More  than 
three  millions  are  kept  sick  in  order  that  a  handful  may 
be  kept  rich. 

This  is  not  mere  rhetoric.  It  is  fact.  Irving  Fisher, 
Professor  of  Political  Economy  at  Yale,  and  President  of 
the  Committee  of  One  Hundred  on  National  Health,  is 
one  of  the  authorities  for  the  figures.  In  his  report  on 
national  vitality,  to  the  Conservation  Commission,  he  de- 
clared that  in  this  country,  every  year,  600,000  human  be- 
ings die  whose  lives  might  be  saved ;  that  there  are  con- 
stantly 3,000,000  ill  who  might  be  well. 

Dr.  Woods  Hutchinson,  New  York  physician,  endorses 
these  estimates.  Moreover,  the  estimates  are  confirmed 
by  the  actual  experience  of  New  Zealand.  New  Zea- 
land's dealh-rate  is  9.5  to  the  thousand.  Our  death-rate 
is  16.5  to  the  thousand.  If  New  Zealand's  population 
were  as  great  as  our  own,  the  number  of  deaths  each 
year,  under  her  present  rate,  would  be  630,000  fewer  than 
the  number  of  Americans  who  die  each  year.  Yet  the 
climate  of  New  Zealand  is  no  more  healthful  than  is  that 
of  America.  New  Zealand  simply  does  not  sacrifice  her 
people  to  private  greed.     America  docs. 

153 


154        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Plenty  of  laymen  know  liow  typhoid  could  be  made  a 
dead  disease.  Germany  has  already  made  typhoid  all 
but  a  dead  disease  in  Germany.  Yet,  in  this  country,  tu- 
berculosis, typhoid  and  other  diseases  that  could  easily  be 
prevented,  are  permitted  to  go  on,  killing  their  millions. 

Why?  Because  capitalism  stands  in  the  way.  Be- 
cause deathbeds  could  not  be  decreased  in  number  without 
decreasing  dividends  in  size.  Because  we  can  reduce  the 
death  rale  only  by  acting  through  our  governments  — 
national,  state  and  municipal  —  and  big  business,  rather 
than  ourselves,  controls  these  governments.  Big  busi- 
ness, desiring  to  keep  the  special  privileges  it  has  and  to 
get  more,  puts  men  into  office  whom  it  believes  will  do  its 
bidding.  Usually,  these  men  know  nothing  and  care 
nothing  about  promoting  the  public  health.  They  are 
politicians.  If  they  do  know  something  about  promoting 
the  public  health,  and  attempt  to  apply  their  knowledge  at 
the  expense  of  somebody's  dividends,  there  is  a  fight.  If 
it  is  a  disease-infected  tenement  that  it  is  desired  to  tear 
down,  the  injunction  is  brought  into  play. 

Such  a  situation  seems  appalling.  It  is  appalling.  It 
borders  upon  the  monstrous  that  a  people  who  have  at  last 
learned  how  to  prevent  the  great  diseases  should  not  be 
permitted  to  apply  their  knowledge.  That  the  people 
endure  such  a  condition  can  be  explained  only  on  the 
theory  that  they  realize  neither  the  ease  with  which  mod- 
ern science  could  extend  their  lives,  nor  the  identity  of  the 
few  who  put  dividends  above  life. 

In  order  that  there  shall  be  no  doubt  concerning  the 
power  of  present  knowledge,  if  applied,  to  destroy  some 
of  the  great  diseases  and  cripple  others,  I  shall  set  down 
here  a  question  that  I  asked  of  Professor  Irving  Fisher, 
Dr.  Woods  Hutchinson,  and  Dr.  J.  N.  McCormack.  Dr. 
McCormack  is  an  eminent  physician,  who  devotes  his 


DEATHBEDS  AND  DIVIDENDS  155 

entire  time  to  lecturing  throughout  the  United  States,  un- 
der the  auspices  of  the  American  Medical  Association 
and  the  Committee  of  One  Hundred.  His  topic  is  the 
advisability  of  applying  modern  knowledge  to  the  public 
health  problem.     Here  is  the  question : 

"  If  you  had  the  power  of  a  czar,  could  you  destroy  tu- 
berculosis and  typhoid  fever,  and  also  greatly  reduce  the 
number  of  deaths  from  pneumonia?"  '  , 

Professor  Fisher  and  Dr.  McCormack  replied  promptly 
in  the  affirmative.  Evidently,  I  might  as  well  have  asked 
Dr.  Hutchinson  if,  having  a  glass  of  water,  he  could 
drink  it.  He  was  most  matter  of  fact.  Without  a  doubt, 
tuberculosis  could  be  destroyed.  So  could  typhoid  fever, 
which  is  solely  a  filth  disease  that  no  one  can  get  without 
eating  or  drinking  matter  that  has  passed  through  the 
stomach  of  a  typhoid  victim.  Parenthetically,  I  may  say 
that  I  heard  Dr.  Hutchinson  tell  a  committee  of  the 
United  States  Senate  that  if  a  National  Department  of 
Health  were  established  and  properly  administered,  half 
of  the  crime  would  cease  in  twenty-five  years.  Dr. 
Hutchinson  also  said  that  it  was  entirely  possible  to  save 
the  babies  that  died  from  preventable  diseases  —  dysen- 
tery, for  instance.  The  lowest  estimate  of  the  number 
of  babies  who  die  every  year  from  preventable  diseases  is 
100,000. 

Ask  the  same  question  of  any  physician  in  the  country 
who  is  worth  his  salt  and  he  will  give  the  same  answer. 
Thus  well  known  are  the  methods  by  which  the  great  dis- 
eases might  be  destroyed. 

The  way  to  wipe  out  tuberculosis  quickly,  for  instance, 
would  be  to  destroy  every  habitation  that  is  known  to  be 
hopelessly  infected  —  and  there  are  many  such  —  permit 
no  habitation  to  be  erected  without  provision  for  suf- 
ficient sunlight  and  air;  permit  no  factory  or  other  work- 


156        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

place  to  be  erected  without  sufficient  provision  for  sun- 
lij;ht  and  fresh  air  —  and  destroy  such  workplaces  as  now 
exist  without  this  provision;  reduce  the  cost  of  living  so 
that  the  millions  who  now  cannot  afford  to  live  in  sani- 
tary homes  and  buy  adequate  food  could  do  so ;  isolate 
the  infected  and  educate  the  people  with  regard  to  the 
necessity  of  sleeping  with  their  bedroom  windows  wide 
open. 

If  this  program  were  put  through,  tuberculosis  would 
cease  as  soon  as  those  who  are  now  infected  should  either 
have  recovered  or  died.  It  is  because  such  a  program 
has  not  been  put  through  that,  according  to  Professor 
Fisher,  there  are  always  500,000  Americans  suffering 
from  tuberculosis,  and  the  annual  death-roll  from  the  dis- 
ease is  150,000.  Any  municipal  government,  if  it  were 
disposed  to  do  so  and  the  courts  were  willing  to  let  it  do 
so,  could  put  through  the  housing  part  of  the  program 
in  a  single  summer.  The  dangerous  habitations  could 
be  condemned.  The  government,  if  necessary,  could 
build  and  rent  at  cost,  sanitary  houses  in  the  suburbs,  as 
the  government  of  New  Zealand  does  for  its  people. 
Congress,  the  President  and  the  courts,  if  they  were  dis- 
posed to  do  so,  could  reduce  the  cost  of  living.  If  the 
government  can  teach  farmers  by  mail  how  to  prevent 
hog-cholera,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  teach  human  beings  by  mail  to  breathe  fresh  air 
both  night  and  day. 

What  stands  in  the  way  of  immediately  putting  through 
such  a  program?  Nothing  in  the  world  except  the  men 
whose  property  would  be  destroyed,  or  whose  stealings 
in  food-prices  would  be  stopped.  The  property  loss 
would  be  enormous.  (Think  of  calling  the  destruction 
of  a  lot  of  death-traps  a  "  loss.")  The  "  value  "  of  the 
property  destroyed  might  be  a  billion  dollars.     Maybe  it 


DEATHBEDS  AND  DIVIDENDS  1157 

would  be  two  billions.  What  difference  need  it  make  if 
it  should  take  five  billion  dollars'  worth  of  labor,  lumber, 
bricks,  steel  and  other  materials  to  replace  death-traps 
with  life-traps?  One  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  lives 
would  be  saved  every  year  from  tuberculosis  alone,  and 
the  rebuilding  operations  would  create  greater  prosperity 
for  labor  than  was  ever  created. by  any  act  of  Congress. 

A  hundred  years  ago,  no  one  knew  how  to  startip  out 
tuberculosis.  What  good  does  it  do  us  to  know  how? 
We  are  not  permitted  to  apply  our  knowledge.  We  can 
peck  away  if  we  want  to,  at  the  edge  of  the  problem,  but 
we  mustn't  strike  at  the  middle.  If  we  should,  we  might 
cut  somebody's  dividends.  We  might  interfere  with  the 
"  vested  interests  "  of  the  owners  of  the  cellars  in  which 
25,000  New  York  families  live,  or  with  the  owners  of  the 
101,000  windowless  rooms  in  which  New  Yorkers  live, 
or  with  the  owners  of  the  unsanitary  houses  and  factories 
in  other  cities.  Our  public  officials  know  better  than  to 
try  to  do  anything  really  radical  in  the  health  line.  They 
have  condemned  just  enough  pestholes  to  know  how  dan- 
gerous it  is  to  political  prospects  to  grapple  with  property, 
and  enforced  just  enough  of  the  factory  laws  to  know 
how  dangerous  it  is  to  try  to  enforce  factory  laws  at  all. 

In  New  York  City,  according  to  Tenement  House  Com- 
missioner Murphy,  45  persons  are  burned  alive  every 
year  in  death-trap  tenements.  A  new  tenement-house 
(law  prohibits  the  erection  of  death-traps,  and  in  the  new 
jtenements  there  are  no  cremations.  But  the  old  death- 
traps are  pcrmiltcd  to  stand.  In  ten  years,  450  more  per- 
sons will  have  been  burned  alive.  In  10  years,  1,500,000 
more  Americans  will  have  died  from  tuberculosis. 

"Of  the  people  living  in  the  United  States  to-day," 
.snifl  J.  Pease  Norton,  Assistant  l^rofcssor  of  Political 
Economy  at  Yale,  "  more  than  8,000,000  will  die  of 


158        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

tuberculosis."  Between  the  ages  of  20  and  30,  every 
third  death  is  from  consumption,  and,  at  all  ages,  the 
mortality  from  the  same  disease  is  one  in  nine. 

We  now  censure  ancient  kings  for  having  slaughtered 
men  in  war  for  private  profit.  But  what  ancient  king 
ever  made  such  a  record  in  war  as  our  dividend-takers 
make  in  peace?  What  ancient  king,  in  his  whole  life- 
time, ever  slew  8,000,000  men?  What  modern  war 
marked  the  end  of  so  many  men  as  tuberculosis  kills  in  a 
year?  During  the  four  years  of  the  Civil  War,  only  a 
little  more  than  200,000  men  were  killed  in  battle.  Tu- 
berculosis kills  300,000  Americans  every  two  years. 
Other  diseases  that  could  be  prevented  if  dividends  were 
out  of  the  way  bring  up  the  total  of  avoidable  deaths  in 
this  country  to  1,200,000  every  two  years. 

What  if  our  Government  did  nothing  to  end  a  war 
that  was  killing  600,000  Americans  each  year?  What 
if  a  few  contractors  who  were  making  millions  out  of  the 
war  controlled  elections,  administrations  and  the  courts 
and  would  not  let  the  government  end  the  war? 

What  difference  does  it  make  whether  foreign  foes  and 
army  contractors  kill  these  millions,  or  whether  domestic 
dividend-takers  and  their  governments  kill  them?  Dead 
men  not  only  "  tell  no  tales,"  but  they  have  no  prefer- 
ences. It  is  as  bad  to  be  dead  from  one  cause  as  from 
another. 

"  During  the  next  ten  years,"  said  Professor  Norton, 
"more  than  6,000,000  infants  less  than  two  years  old 
will  end  their  little  spans  of  life,  while  mothers  sit  by  and 
watch  in  utter  helplessness.  And  yet  this  number  could 
probably  be  decreased  by  as  much  as  half.  But  nothing 
is  done." 

Dr.  Cressey  L.  Wilbur,  Chief  Statistician  for  Vital 
Statistics  for  the  Federal  Census  Bureau,  says  that  at 


DEATHBEDS  AND  DIVIDENDS  159 

least  100,000  and  perhaps  200,000  children  less  than  five 
years  old  die  in  this  country  every  year  from  preventable 
causes. 

Our  national  government  freights  the  mails  with  circu- 
lars telling  how  to  cure  hog-cholera  and  kill  the  insects 
that  prey  on  fruit  trees;  but  in  all  the  years  since  the 
Revolutionary  War,  it  has  never  sent  a  circular  to  a 
mother  telling  her  how  to  keep  her  baby  alive.  The 
state  and  the  municipal  governments  have  done  some- 
thing, but  they  have  usually  stopped  when  they  reached 
the  big  money  bags.  Not  a  state  or  a  city  has  made  it 
impossible  for  a  baby  to  be  given  bad  milk.  Not  a  state 
or  a  city  has  rid  itself  of  unsanitary  habitations.  Not  a 
state  or  a  city  has  condemned  all  the  workshops  in  which 
men  and  women  work  at  the  peril  of  their  lives.  Not  a 
state  or  a  city  has  even  enforced  its  own  factory-inspec- 
tion laws. 

If  the  men  whom  big  business  has  put  in  office  were 
even  intelligently  interested  in  public  health,  probably 
50,000  babies  could  be  saved  each  year  without  tearing 
down  a  rookery  or  providing  a  single  better  house.  A 
little  intelligent  effort  and  a  few  thousand  dollars  would 
suffice. 

Dr.  Hutchinson  tells  what  a  little  intelligent  effort 
and  a  few  dollars  did  for  the  babies  of  the  small  English 
city  of  Huddersficld.  A  few  years  ago  a  physician  was 
elected  mayor.  One  of  his  first  acts  was  to  announce  that 
he  woulfl  give  a  prize  of  ten  shillings  to  the  mother  of 
every  child  born  during  the  mayor's  administration,  pro- 
vided the  babies  were  brought  to  his  office  in  perfect 
health,  on  the  first  anniversary  of  their  birth.  The  only 
other  stipulation  was  that  no  mother  .should  be  eligible  to 
a  prize  who  did  not  immediately  report  to  the  mayor  the 
birth  of  her  infant. 


i6o        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Though  the  prize  was  small,  there  was  no  lack  of  moth- 
ers who  were  willing  to  be  takers.  The  doctor-mayor 
established  what  amounted  to  a  correspondence  school 
for  mothers,  and,  at  the  birth  of  each  child,  began  to  send 
circulars  telling  how  to  take  care  of  the  baby;  what  to 
feed  it  and  what  not  to  feed  it ;  what  to  do  if  the  baby  ap- 
peared so-and-so  —  and  so  on.  Moreover,  he  kept  a  city 
physician  on  the  circuit  to  look  in  at  each  home  as  often 
as  possible,  to  see  how  the  babies  appeared  and  give  the 
mothers  further  advice. 

That's  all  there  is  to  this  story  —  except  that  he  brought 
down  the  death-rate  for  babies  from  130  to  55 ;  saved  75 
babies  each  year  to  each  thousand  born.  More  than  that 
he  helped  the  babies  who  would  have  lived  anyway. 
Good  care,  says  the  doctor,  will  increase  the  strength  of 
strong  babies  from  15  to  25  per  cent. 

Any  American  government  could  do  as  much.  By 
condemning  unsanitary  homes  any  American  government 
could  do  more.  All  that  is  necessary  is  the  desire  —  and 
the  permission  of  those  who  control  the  governments. 
The  people  that  cast  the  ballots  are  willing  to  give  the 
permission,  but  the  ballots  they  cast  perpetuate  the  con- 
ditions against  which  they  complain.  Otherwise,  there 
w^ould  be  no  death-trap  houses ;  nor  impure  food ;  nor  ex- 
tortionate food-prices ;  nor  unsanitary  work-places.  And 
somebody  would  go  to  jail  if  an  ice  trust,  desiring  to  crip- 
ple competitors  who  might  cut  prices,  should  send  ships 
up  a  river  to  destroy  the  ice.  It  was  brought  out  in 
court  that  the  New  York  Ice  Trust  did  that.  The  ice 
trust  was  convicted  under  the  State  anti-trust  law.  But 
nobody  is  in  jail.  And  ice  is  still  selling  at  a  price  that 
kills  the  children  of  the  poor. 

The  only  way  to  get  iDig  business  on  the  side  of  public 
health  is  to  get  public  health  and  private  profit  on  the 


DEATHBEDS  AND  DIVIDENDS  i6i 

same  side.  Health  makes  efficiency,  efficiency  makes 
profit,  and  whenever  pubHc  health  can  be  bought  at  a 
price  that  seems  likely  to  yield  a  profit  in  efficiency,  big 
business  will  buy.  That  is  the  way  Professor  Fisher 
figures  it  out  and  here  is  a  case  that  he  cites  in  point : 

The  girls  in  one  of  the  Chicago  telephone  exchanges 
that  is  located  in  a  particularly  smoky  and  dusty  part  of 
the  city  complained  to  the  manager  of  the  smoke  and 
dust.  He  cheerfully  advised  them  to  forget  the  smoke 
and  dust  and  go  on  with  their  work,  which,  having  more 
hunger  than  money,  they  did. 

A  few  months  later  a  growing  volume  of  complaints 
against  bad  service  caused  the  manager  to  investigate. 
He  found  that  the  smoke  and  dust  were  interfering  with 
the  operation  of  the  switchboards.  The  little  brass  tags 
were  so  gummed  that  frequently  they  did  not  fall  when 
subscribers  called.  Nor  did  the  grime  on  the  "  plugs  " 
with  which  connections  are  made  constitute  a  good  me- 
dium for  the  flow  of  electricity. 

When  the  manager  learned  what  the  smoke  and  dust 
were  doing  to  his  human  machines  he  did  nothing.  But 
when  he  learned  what  smoke  and  dust  were  doing  to  his 
metallic  machines  he  wasted  no  time.  He  laid  the  mat- 
ter before  his  superiors,  with  the  result  that  a  plan  was 
installed  for  the  filtration,  through  water,  of  every  par- 
ticle of  air  that  entered  the  exchange. 

It  is  not  to  the  interest  of  big  business  as  a  whole  that 
the  people  should  have  pure  food.  The  markets  are 
flooded  with  unwholesome  food  that  an  honest  law, 
honestly  administered,  would  have  barred.  Professor 
Fisher  relates  an  incident  that  shows  how  afraid  the  big 
meat  dealers  are  of  the  pure  food  law. 

The  professor  was  sitting  in  the  lobby  of  a  hotel  not 
dibtant  from  New  York.     The  proprietor  of  the  hotel 


i62        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

called  up  a  New  York  meat  dealer  on  the  long-distance 
'phone  to  complain  that  some  bad  beef  had  been  sent  to 
the  hotel.  He  said  he  had  never  yet  fed  his  patrons  on 
rotten  beef  and  he  didn't  intend  to  begin.  The  beef  must 
be  taken  away  and  the  charge  deducted  from  his  bill. 
The  man  at  the  other  end  of  the  wire  evidently  offered 
no  opposition,  and  the  receiver  was  hung  up.  1 

Soon  the  telephone  rang  again.  New  York  was  on  the 
wire.  The  conversation  was  brief.  All  that  Professor 
Fisher  could  hear  was  the  hotel  man's  single  remark : 
"  I'll  see  what  I  can  do  and  let  you  know." 

The  hotel  man  rang  off  and  immediately  called  up  a 
local  restaurant.  Then  Professor  Fisher  heard  this 
cheerful  statement  go  over  the  wire: 

"  I've  got  some  beef  here  that  ain't  just  right,  and 
the  New  York  people  who  sent  it  to  me  wanted  me  to 
see  if  I  couldn't  sell  it  for  them  up  here  .  .  .  Oh, 
it'll  hang  together  yet,  but  'tain't  what  I  want  for  my 
people ;  you  might  use  it,  though  ...  I  don't  know 
what  the  price  will  be.  You'll  have  to  make  your  bar- 
gain with  them,  but  it  won't  be  much.  .  .  .  All 
right,  send  over  and  get  it." 

And  this  —  and  a  thousand  times  more  than  this  — 
under  the  Pure  Food  Law!  Such  crimes  could  not  oc- 
cur if  the  government,  when  it  tried  to  enact  a  decent 
law,  had  not  been  thrown  flat  on  its  back.  The  pity  of 
it  is  that  when  big  business  and  a  government  come  into 
collision  over  public  health  matters,  the  government  is 
usually  thrown  on  its  back. 

"  I  doubt,"  said  Dr.  Hutchinson,  "  whether  there  is  a 
local  health  officer  at  any  post  of  entry  in  the  United 
States  who,  if  a  case  of  plague,  cholera  or  yellow  fever 
should  appear  on  a  ship,  would  not  think  three  or  four 
times  before  he  reported  it.     And  if  he  did  report  it,  as 


DEATHBEDS  AND  DIVIDENDS  163 

the  law  requires  him  to  do,  his  act  would  cost  him  his 
position.     Business  interests  would  cause  his  removal." 

This  is  not  mere  talk.  Nor  is  it  simply  prophecy. 
It  is  history.  So  long  as  New  Orleans  was  subject  to 
periodical  outbreaks  of  yellow  fever,  the  health  authori- 
ties were  compelled  not  only  to  fight  the  disease,  but 
to  fight  the  business  interests  that  denied  its  existence. 
Dr.  Hutchinson  says  that  business  interests  once  caused 
the  removal  of  the  State  health  officer  of  Louisiana, 
merely  because  he  insisted  that  yellow  fever  existed  in 
the  State  —  which  it  did. 

Dr.  Hutchinson  himself,  as  State  health  officer  of 
Oregon,  in  1905-6,  had  to  fight  big  business  to  conserve 
public  health.  Big  business  whipped  him.  His  experi- 
ences were  not  novel,  but  one  of  them  will  be  related 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  was  not  novel,  and  there- 
fore shows  the  sort  of  opposition  that  health  officers, 
all  over  the  land,  are  compelled  to  encounter. 

Soon  after  taking  of^ce  Dr.  Hutchinson  began  an  in- 
vestigation of  the  water  supplies  of  the  chief  cities  of 
Oregon.  His  report  showed  that  the  water  that  private 
corporations  were  serving  to  municipalities  carried 
typhoid  infection. 

Immediately  the  business  interests  of  the  State  turned 
their  guns  upon  him.  Through  the  newspapers,  which 
they  controlled  by  reason  of  advertising  contracts,  they 
denounced  him  as  an  "  enemy  of  the  State."  "  The  fair 
fame  of  the  commonwealth  "  was  being  traduced  by  a 
reckless  maligner.  He  was  even  dared  to  show  his  face 
in  one  city.  An  attempt  was  made  to  remove  him  from 
ofTice,  but  the  governor  happened  to  be  a  man  who  could 
not  be  browbeaten,  and  Dr.  Hutchinson  remained. 

But  while  the  business  interests  of  Oregon  were  not 
able  to  get  the  governor,  they  got  somebody.     The  city 


i64        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

officials  ^vllo  could  have  purified  the  water  took  no  step 
to  do  so.  If  they  had  merely  recognized  the  existence 
of  infected  water  and  urged  the  people  to  boil  it,  some 
service  would  have  been  performed.  But  the  municipal 
officials  upheld  the  "  fair  fame  "  of  their  various  com- 
munities by  denying  that  the  water  was  infected.  Not- 
withstanding their  denials  t3^phoid  soon  broke  out.  The 
outbreak  at  Eugene,  the  seat  of  the  State  university,  was 
particularly  severe.     Several  students  died. 

Yet  the  San  Francisco  plague  case  njust  long  stand  as 
the  classic  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  business 
fights  government  when  a  great  disease  comes.  Black 
plague  —  the  deadliest  known  to  the  Orient ;  a  disease 
that,  more  than  once,  has  killed  5,ooo,0(X)  persons  dur- 
ing a  single  outbreak  —  appeared  in  San  Francisco  in 
1900.  The  local  board  of  health  quarantined  the  Chi- 
nese district,  and  the  news  went  out  over  the  country. 
The  horror  of  horrors  had  arrived!  The  black  plague! 
It  sent  a  shudder  over  the  land. 

It  sent  a  greater  shudder  over  the  business  interests 
of  San  Francisco.  These  business  interests  quickly  saw 
visions  of  quarantines  against  the  State  and  cessation 
of  tourist  traffic.  An  appeal  was  made  to  a  Federal 
Judge  to  declare  the  quarantine  illegal.  He  promptly 
did  so.  In  giving  his  decision,  he  went  out  of  his  way 
to  make  this  statement : 

"  If  it  were  within  the  province  of  this  court  to  de- 
cide the  point,  I  should  hold  that  there  is  not  now,  and 
never  has  been,  a  case  of  plague  in  this  city." 

The  local  board  of  health  that  discovered  the  plague 
was  removed,  as  was  the  State  board  of  health  that  con- 
firmed the  prevalence  of  the  disease.  The  governor  of 
the  State  sent  a  remarkable  message  to  the  Legislature 
in  which  he  denounced  those  who  said  plague  existed  in 


DEATHBEDS  AND  DIVIDENDS  165 

San  Francisco,  and  appointed  a  committee  of  physicians 
and  big  business  men  to  go  to  the  Cahfornia  metropolis 
and  make  an  "  impartial  "  investigation.  The  business 
men  on  the  committee  included  the  biggest  bankers  and 
merchants  in  California.  They  reported  in  the  most  posi- 
tive terms  that  there  was  no  plague. 

Dr.  Kinyoun,  the  Marine  Hospital  Surgeon  in  charge, 
held  his  ground.  Dr.  Kinyoun  was  shortly  transferred 
to  Detroit.  His  successor  said  there  was  plague.  His 
successor  was  shortly  transferred  to  a  distant  city. 

Of  course,  no  one  now  denies  that  black  plague  was 
in  San  Francisco  precisely  when  Dr.  Kinyoun  said  it 
was.  Even  the  eminent  bankers  and  merchants  who  cer- 
tified that  it  wasn't  there  admit  that  they  were  in 
"  error."  It  is  nowhere  denied  that  there  were  more  than 
200  cases.  It  is  nowhere  denied  that  there  were  more 
than  100  deaths. 

Such  is  the  situation  that  has  been  imposed  upon  us  by 
a  system  that  places  private  profits  above  human  life. 
Having  painfully  accumulated  the  knowledge  with  which 
we  could  combat  the  great  disease,  we  are  unable  to 
apply  it  because  we  do  not  own  and  therefore  cannot 
manage  our  own  country. 

"  We  look  with  horror  on  the  black  plague  of  the 
Middle  Ages,"  said  Professor  Norton.  "  The  black 
plague  was  but  a  passing  cloud,  compared  with  the  white 
plague  visitation." 


CHAPTER  XI 

IF    NOT    SOCIALISM WHAT? 

I  HAVE  never  seen  you,  but  I  know  you.  Your 
knuckles  are  bloody  from  continued  knocking  at 
the  door  of  happiness.  The  harder  you  knock,  the 
bloodier  your  knuckles  become.  But  the  door  does  not 
open.  It  stands  like  an  iron  gate  between  you  and 
the  desires  of  your  soul. 

What  is  the  matter  with  this  world?  Was  it  made 
wrong?  Is  it  a  barren  spot  to  which  too  many  have  been 
sent?  After  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  Mr.  Morgan  had  been 
sent,  should  you  have  been  kept  ?  Is  this  their  world  and 
are  you  an  intruder  here  ? 

You  are  not  an  intruder  here.  You  know  that.  You 
have  as  good  a  right  here  as  anyone  else.  But  perhaps, 
nevertheless,  this  world  was  made  wrong?  If  you  had 
the  power  to  make  worlds,  could  you  make  a  better  one  ? 
Could  you  make  fairer  skies?  Could  you  make  greener 
fields?  Could  you  improve  the  sun?  Could  you  make 
better  people? 

Perhaps  you  could  do  none  of  these  things?  If  not, 
what  is  the  matter  with  this  world?  Look  at  it  again. 
Here  it  is  —  spinning  beneath  your  feet  as  it  has  spun 
since  the  dawn  of  time,  and,  never  before,  since  the  dawn 
of  time,  has  it  been  such  a  world  as  it  is  now.  Never 
before,  since  the  dawn  of  time,  was  it  so  well  suited  to 
your  purposes  as  it  is  now. 

Your  ancestors  enjoyed  no  material  thing  that  they  had 

not  wearily  created  with  their  hands.     You  need  create 

i66 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  — WHAT?  167 

nothing  with  your  hands.  You  need  but  to  touch  with 
the  tips  of  your  fingers  the  iron  hands  that  can  make 
what  man  could  never  make  so  well.  Whatever  ma- 
chinery can  make,  you  can  have.  And,  to  drive  this  ma- 
chinery, you  have  the  forces  of  the  sun,  as  they  come  to 
you  in  the  form  of  steam  and  electricity. 

Make  no  mistake  —  good,  bad  or  indifferent  as  this 
world  may  be,  it  is  at  least  moving.  None  of  your  an- 
cestors ever  lived  in  such  a  world.  And  none  of  your 
descendants  will  ever  live  in  such  a  world  as  we  live  in 
to-day. 

Edison  once  pictured  to  me  the  world  that  he  already 
sees  dawning.  It  was  a  wonderful  world,  because  it  was 
filled  with  wonderful  machinery.  Cloth  would  go  into 
one  end  of  a  machine  and  come  out  at  the  other  end 
finished  suits  of  clothes,  boxed  and  ready  for  the  mar- 
ket. Every  machine,  instead  of  making  a  part  of  a  thing, 
would  make  the  complete  thing  and  put  it  together.  The 
world  would  be  smothered  with  wealth. 

But  there  was  one  disquieting  feature  about  his  world. 
There  was  not  much  room  in  it  for  men.  Each  ma- 
chine, attended  by  but  a  single  man,  would  do  the  work 
of  hundreds  of  men.  Moreover,  that  one  man  need  not 
be  skilled.  He  need  be  but  the  merest  automaton.  Only 
the  inventor  of  the  machine  need  have  brains. 

Maybe  Edison  was  dreaming.  The  easy  way  is  to  say 
he  was  dreaming.  I,  who  know  him,  have  my  doubts. 
'Edison  always  dreams  before  he  does,  but  everything 
that  he  dreams  seems  pitifully  small  beside  what  he  does. 
He  dreamed  of  the  electric  light  before  he  made  it,  but 
his  dream  was  paltry  beside  the  light  he  made.  And,  the 
dynamo  of  his  dream  was  a  whccli)arr(jw  beside  the 
dynamo  that  to-day  sings  its  shrill  srmg  around  the  world. 

This  much,  however,  is  not  a  dream.     Some  of  the 


1 68        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

automatic  machinery  that  Edison  spoke  of  is  already 
here.  One  man  behind  a  machine  is  doing  the  work  of 
hundreds  of  men.  Men  are  becoming  a  drug  upon  the 
labor  market.  More  than  five  millions  are  often  out  of 
work.  As  invention  proceeds,  the  percentage  of  the 
population  who  cannot  find  work  must  increase. 

What  is  going  to  become  of  these  men  ?  Do  you  ex- 
pect them  to  starve  quietly?  Do  you  believe  they  will 
make  no  outcry?  Do  you  believe  they  will  raise  no  hand 
against  a  world  that  raises  both  hands  against  them? 
Moreover,  what  kind  of  a  world  is  it  in  which  the  greater 
the  machinery,  the  greater  the  curse  to  the  men  who  run 
machinery?  We  do  not  yet  live  in  such  a  world,  it  is 
true,  but  if  Edison  be  not  in  error,  we  shall  soon  live  in 
it?     What  shall  we  do  when  machinery  does  everything? 

This  may  seem  like  a  far  cry,  but  it  isn't.  The  germ 
of  the  Socialist  philosophy  is  contained  in  this  one  word 
"  machinery."  Let  us  put  the  spot-light  upon  that  word 
and  show  everything  that  is  in  it. 

Suppose  there  were  one  machine  in  this  country  that 
was  capable  of  producing  every  material  thing  that  hu- 
man beings  need  or  desire.  Suppose  the  machine  were 
so  wonderfully  automatic  that  it  could  be  perfectly  op- 
erated by  pushing  a  button,  once  a  day,  in  a  Wall  Street 
office. 

Beside  this  push-button,  suppose  there  were  another 
button  that  operated  all  of  the  railroads  in  the  country; 
passenger  trains  automatically  starting  and  stopping  at 
the  appointed  places;  freight  trains  automatically  taking 
on  and  discharging  their  cargoes.  Not  a  human  being 
at  work  anywhere. 

Imagine  also  one  man  owning  this  great  machine  and 
the  railroads. 

The  rest  of  the  race,  if  it  were  to  remain  law-abiding, 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  — WHAT?  169 

would  be  compelled  to  change  the  law  or  starve  to  death, 
would  it  not?  What  else  could  the  race  do?  Nobody- 
would  have  any  work.  Nobody  would  therefore  have 
anything  with  which  to  buy.  The  single  giant  machine 
might  be  capable  of  producing,  with  the  push-button  help 
of  its  owner,  more  necessities  and  luxuries  than  the  en- 
tire race  could  consume.  The  automatic  railway  system 
might  be  capable  of  delivering  to  every  door  everything 
that  everybody  might  want.  The  single  owner  might 
have  more  billions  of  dollars  than  Mr.  Rockefeller  has 
cents.     But  nobody  else  would  have  anything. 

What  I  am  trying  to  show  is  that  the  private  owner- 
ship of  machinery  is  a  gigantic  wrong.  If  it  were  not  a 
wrong,  the  world  would  be  helped  by  the  private  owner- 
ship of  a  single  machine  fitted  to  produce  every  material 
thing  that  the  race  needs.  If  the  people  owned  such  a 
machine,  there  would  certainly  be  no  more  poverty. 
There  would  be  no  more  poverty  because  the  people 
would  get  what  the  machine  produced. 

If  this  be  plain,  let  us  further  consider  the  present  sit- 
uation. 

We  live  in  a  wonderful  world. 

It  is  big  enough  and  rich  enough  to  enable  everybody 
in  it  to  live  in  comfort. 

But  hundreds  of  millions  throughout  the  world  do  not 
live  in  comfort  because  the  progress  of  the  world  has 
brought  relatively  little  to  them. 

They  have  no  sliare  of  stock  in  the  earth  —  somebody 
who  has  a  little  piece  of  paper  in  his  hand  claims  the  own- 
ership of  the  spot  of  earth  upon  which  they  wish  to  lay 
their  heads  and  charges  them  rent  for  using  it. 

Another  little  group  own  all  of  the  machinery,  hand- 
ing out  jobs  here  and  there  to  the  men  who  offer  to  work 
for  the  least. 


I70        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Nor  is  this  a  chance  situation,  A  small  class  has  al- 
ways robbed  the  great  class.  It  has  been  and  is  the  rule 
of  the  world.  The  methods  of  robbery  have  been 
changed.  IMcthod  after  method  has  been  abandoned  as 
the  people  awakened  to  the  means  by  which  they  were 
being  robbed.  But  robbery  has  never  been  abandoned. 
The  small,  greedy,  cunning  class  that  will  not  be  con- 
tent with  what  it  can  earn  is  here  to-day,  playing  the  old 
game  with  a  new  method. 

Socialists  declare  the  new  method  is  to  own  the  indus- 
trial machinery  with  which  all  other  men  must  work. 
You  may  not  agree  with  this.  Probably  you  do  not. 
If  you  do  not,  will  you  kindly  answer  some  questions? 

Why  do  a  few  men,  who  will  work  with  no  machinery, 
want  to  own  all  of  the  machinery  in  the  country? 

Would  these  men  care  to  own  any  machinery  if  there 
were  not  an  opportunity  in  such  ownership  to  get  money? 

Where  can  the  money  they  get  come  from  except  from 
the  wealth  that  is  produced  by  the  men  who  work  with 
their  machinery? 

So  long  as  a  few  men  own  all  of  the  machinery,  must 
not  all  other  men  be  at  their  mercy? 

How  can  anyone  get  a  job  so  long  as  the  men  who  own 
the  machinery  say  he  can  have  no  job? 

How  can  anyone  demand  a  wage  that  represents  the 
full  value  of  his  product  so  long  as  the  capitalist  refuses 
to  pay  any  wages  that  do  not  assure  a  profit  to  him? 

Mr.  Roosevelt  and  some  others  would  have  you  believe 
that  all  of  these  wrongs  can  be  "  regulated  "  into  rights. 
They  would  have  you  believe  that  only  "  strong  "  com- 
missions are  necessary  to  make  all  of  these  wrongs  right. 
But  Mr,  Roosevelt  and  some  others  do  not  know  what 
they  are  talking  about.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  opinion 
but  a  matter  of  fact.     Men  have  talked  as  they  talk  since 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  — WHAT?  171 

robbery  began.  History  records  no  instance  of  one  of 
them  that  made  good.  During  all  of  the  years  that  Mr. 
Roosevelt  was  in  the  White  House,  he  never  appointed 
a  commission  that  was  "  strong  "  enough  to  make  good. 

We  have  it  upon  the  authority  of  no  less  a  man  than 
Dr.  Wiley  that  'Mr.  Roosevelt's  commission  to  prevent 
the  poisoning  of  food  was  not  strong  enough  to  make 
good.     The  food-poisoning  went  on. 

I  mention  Mr.  Roosevelt's  food  commission  because  it 
is  a  shining  example  of  what  his  "  strong  "  commission 
theory  of  government  cannot  do.  Mr.  Roosevelt,  un- 
questionably, is  and  was  opposed  to  the  poisoning  of 
food.  He  appointed  a  commission  to  stop  one  kind  of 
poisoning.  But,  for  reasons  that  you,  as  well  as  anyone 
else,  can  surmise,  the  commission  decided  in  favor  of  the 
food-poisoners  instead  of  in  favor  of  the  public.  Which 
brings  us  to  this  question:  If  Mr.  Roosevelt  could  not 
appoint  a  commission  "  strong  "  enough  even  to  prevent 
the  poisoning  of  food,  what  reason  have  you  to  believe 
that  he  or  anyone  else  could  appoint  a  commission  strong 
enough  to  prevent  capitalists  from  robbing  workingmen  ? 

You  who  oppose  Socialism  do  so,  no  doubt,  largely 
because  you  believe  the  people  could  not  advantageously 
own  and  manage  their  own  industrial  machinery.  We 
who  advocate  Socialism  reply  that  it  is  much  easier  to 
manage  what  you  own  than  it  is  to  manage  what  some- 
one else  owns.  The  facts  of  history  show  that  it  is  prac- 
tically impossible  to  manage  what  someone  else  owns. 
That  is  what  we  are  trying  to  do  to-day  —  and  we 
are  failing  at  it.  We  are  trying  to  manage  the  trusts. 
Fight  as  we  will,  the  trusts  are  managing  us.  They  fix 
almost  every  fact  in  our  lives.  They  begin  fixing  the 
facts  of  our  lives  even  before  we  are  born.  They 
determine  even    whether   all   of   us   shall   be   born.     It 


i;2    THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

is  a  well-known  fact  that  when  times  are  bad,  the 
birth-rate  decreases.  Having  the  power  to  make  bad 
times,  the  trusts  also  have  the  power  to  diminish  the 
number  of  births.  The  trust  panic  of  1907  unquestion- 
ably prevented  thousands  of  children  from  being  born. 
No  one  can  ever  know  how  many,  but  we  do  know  that 
both  marriages  and  births  decreased. 

In  view  of  such  facts  as  these,  is  it  not  idle  to  talk 
about  "regulating"  the  property  of  others?  Is  it  not 
stupid  to  believe  that  in  such  regulation  lies  our  greatest 
hope  of  material  well-being?  You  must  admit  that,  thus 
far,  the  process  of  regulation  has  gone  on  painfully 
slowly.  If  poverty,  the  fear  of  poverty  and  enforced 
idleness  are  any  indications  of  the  progress  of  the  coun- 
try, it  is  difficult  to  see  that  we  have  made  any  progress. 
Never  before  were  so  many  millions  of  men  out  of  work 
in  this  country  as  there  were  during  the  panic  of  1907. 
Never  before  were  so  many  millions  of  human  beings  so 
uncertain  of  their  future.  A  few  men  hold  us  all  in  the 
hollows  of  their  hands.  Our  destinies  lie,  not  in  our- 
selves, but  in  them. 

Is  it  not  so?  Don't  be  blinded  by  "commissions," 
political  pow-wow  and  nonsense  —  is  it  not  so?  If  it  is 
so,  how  much  progress  have  we  made  toward  getting  rid 
of  poverty  by  trying  to  regulate  property  that  we  do  not 
own?  We  have  been  playing  the  game  of  "  regulation  " 
for  more  than  a  generation.  It  has  done  nothing  for 
you.  How  many  more  generations  do  you  expect  to 
live?  Are  you  willing  to  go  to  your  grave  with  this 
pestilential  question  of  poverty  still  weighing  upon  your 
heart?  Are  you  willing  to  go  out  of  the  world  feeling 
that  you  never  really  lived  in  it  —  that  it  was  only  a  place 
where  you  toiled  and  sweat  and  suffered  while  others 
lived? 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  — WHAT?  173 

We  Socialists  put  it  to  you  as  a  common-sense  affirma- 
tion that  your  time  can  come  now  if  you  and  all  others 
like  you  will  join  in  a  political  effort  to  make  it  come. 

Any  political  partisan  will  make  you  the  same  promise, 
but  you  know,  from  sad  experience,  that  their  promises 
are  worthless.  We  ask  you  to  consider  whether  our 
promises  are  worthless. 

We  promise  you,  for  instance,  that  if  you  will  give  us 
power  you  need  never  again  want  for  v;ork.  If  the 
people,  through  the  government,  owned  the  trusts  and 
other  great  industries,  why  should  anybody  ever  again 
want  for  work?  Thenceforward,  the  great  plants  would 
always  be  open.  No  factory  door  would  ever  be  closed 
so  long  as  there  was  a  demand  for  the  product  of  the 
factory.  If  the  demand  for  goods  were  greater  than  the 
capacity  of  the  factories,  the  number  of  factories  would 
be  increased.  Nothing  is  simpler  than  to  increase  the 
number  of  factories.  Only  men  and  materials  are  re- 
quired.    We  have  an  abundance  of  each. 

But  we  promise  you  more.  We  promise  you  that,  if 
you  will  give  us  power,  we  will  give  you  not  only  the 
continuous  opportunity  to  work,  but  we  will  give  you 
continuous  freedom  from  robbery.  Again,  nothing  is 
simpler  than  to  work  without  robbery.  All  that  is 
necessary  is  to  enable  the  worker  to  go  to  work  without 
walking  into  anyone's  clutches.  No  one  can  now  go  to 
work  without  walking  into  many  men's  clutches.  When 
a  man  goes  to  work  for  the  Steel  Trust,  he  walks  into  the 
clutches  of  everybody  who  owns  the  stocks  or  the  bonds 
of  the  trust.  When  a  man  goes  to  work  for  a  railway 
company,  he  walks  into  the  clutches  of  every  person  who 
owns  the  stocks  or  the  bonds  of  the  railway  company. 
In  other  words,  the  stock  and  bondholders  of  these  insti- 
tutions, by  virtue  of  their  control  of  the  machinery  in- 


174        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

volvcd.  have  it  in  their  power  to  say  whether  the  worker 
shall  work  or  not  work.  They  say  he  shall  not  work  un- 
less they  can  make  a  profit  upon  his  labor.  The  worker 
cannot  haggle  too  long  because  he  must  labor  or  starve. 
Therefore,  he  comes  to  terms.  He  walks  into  the 
clutches  of  those  who  want  to  rob  him  of  part  of  what  he 
produces.  He  consents  to  w^ork  for  a  wage  that  repre- 
sents only  a  part  of  what  he  has  produced. 

That  is  robbery.  You  may  call  it  business,  but  it  is 
robbery.  If  robbery  is  anything,  it  is  the  taking  of  the 
property  of  another  against  his  will.  The  worker  knows 
his  wage  is  not  all  he  earns.  He  resents  the  fact  that  he 
must  toil  long  and  hard  for  a  poor  living,  while  his  em- 
ployer lives  in  luxury  without  doing  any  useful  labor. 
But  the  worker  has  no  alternative.  He  must  consent. 
He  does  consent. 

Under  Socialism,  there  would  be  no  such  robbery,  be- 
cause goods  would  not  be  produced  for  profit.  Goods 
would  be  produced  only  because  the  people  wanted  them. 
Whatever  the  people  wanted  would  be  produced,  not  in 
niggardly  volume,  but  in  abundance. 

Decent  homes,  for  instance,  would  be  produced.  Mil- 
lions of  people  in  the  great  cities  now  live  in  houses  that 
are  death-traps.  They  are  not  houses,  in  the  sense  that 
country  dwellers  understand  the  word,  but  dingy  rooms, 
piled  one  upon  another  in  great  blocks.  Light  seldom 
enters  some  of  them.  Fresh  air  can  hardly  get  into  any 
of  them.  The  germs  of  tuberculosis  abound.  The 
germs  of  other  diseases  swirl  through  the  dust  of  the 
streets.  The  death-rate  is  abnormally  high  —  particu- 
larly the  death-rate  of  children.  Yet,  nothing  would  be 
simpler,  if  the  profit-seeking  capitalists  were  shorn  of 
their  power,  than  to  give  every  human  being  in  this  coun- 
try a  decent  home. 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  — WHAT?  175 

The  best  material  out  of  which  to  make  a  house  is 
cement  or  brick.  Either  is  better  than  wood  because 
wood  both  rots  and  burns.  There  is  practically  no  limit 
to  the  number  of  cement  and  brick  houses  that  could  be 
built  in  this  country.  Every  State  contains  enough  clay 
and  other  materials  to  build  enough  houses  to  supply  the 
whole  country.  If  the  five  millions  of  men  who  were 
out  of  work  for  many  years  following  the  panic  of  1907 
could  have  been  employed  at  house-building,  they  them- 
selves would  not  only  have  been  prosperous,  but  the 
American  people  would  have  been  housed  as  they  had 
never  been  housed  before.  If  the  two  millions  of  men 
who  are  always  denied  employment,  even  in  so-called 
"  good  "  times,  were  continuously  engaged  in  house-build- 
ing, good  houses  would  be  so  numerous  that  we  should 
not  know  what  to  do  with  them. 

The  same  facts  apply  to  all  other  necessities  of  life. 
The  nation  needs  bread.  Some  are  starving  for  it  all 
the  while.  Yet  what  is  simpler  tiian  the  furnishing  of 
bread?  We  know  how  to  grow  wheat.  With  the  sci- 
entific knowledge  that  the  government  could  devote  to 
wheat  growing,  combined  with  the  improved  machinery 
that  a  rich  government  could  bring  to  bear  upon  the  prob- 
lem, the  wheat-production  of  the  country  could  easily  be 
multiplied  by  four.  Little  Holland  and  little  Belgium, 
with  no  better  soil  than  our  own,  raise  almost  four  times 
as  much  wheat  to  the  acre  as  we  do.  And,  with  wheat ^ 
once  grown,  nothing  is  more  simple  than  to  make  it  into 
flour.  Probably  we  already  have  enough  milling  ma- 
chinery to  make  all  the  Hour  we  need.  If  not,  we  could 
easily  build  four  times  as  many  mills.  We  should  never 
be  unable  to  build  more  mills  until  we  had  no  unem- 
ployed men  to  set  to  work.  And.  if  we  had  no  unem- 
ployed men  to  set  to  work,  we  should  have,  for  the  first 


176        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

time  in  the  history  of  tlie  world,  a  completely  happy  na- 
tion. 

Do  you  doubt  any  of  tliesc  statements?  How  can 
you  doubt  them  ?  We  have  the  men.  We  have  the  ma- 
terials. The  only  trouble  is  that  they  are  kept  apart. 
They  are  kept  apart  because  a  few  men  control  things 
and  will  not  allow  men  and  material  to  come  together 
unless  that  means  a  profit  for  the  few  men.  We  Social- 
ists purpose  to  put  them  together.  If  they  were  put 
together,  how  much  longer  do  you  believe  the  people 
would  have  to  shiver  in  winter  for  lack  of  woolen  cloth- 
ing? There  is  no  secret  about  raising  sheep.  We  have 
vast  areas  upon  which  we  could  raise  more  than  we  shall 
ever  need.  Even  a  concern  like  the  Woolen  Trust  —  the 
head  of  which  was  indicted  for  conspiring  to  "  plant  " 
dynamite  at  Lawrence  to  besmirch  the  strikers  —  even 
such  a  concern  enables  some  of  us  to  wear  wool  in  the 
winter  time.  How  many  more  do  you  believe  would 
wear  wool  if  the  United  States  government  were  to  take 
the  place  of  this  concern  as  a  manufacturer  of  woolen 
goods?  Do  you  believe  anybody  would  be  compelled  to 
suffer  from  cold  for  lack  of  woolen  clothing?  How  can 
you  so  believe?  The  government,  if  necessary,  could 
build  four  woolen  mills  for  every  one  that  exists.  The 
government  could  not  fail  to  supply  the  people's  needs. 
And,  with  all  goods  sold  at  cost,  prices  would  be  so  low 
that  the  people  could  buy. 

These,  and  many  other  possibilities,  are  entirely  within 
your  reach.  You  can  realize  them  now.  Will  you 
kindly  tell  when  you  expect  to  realize  them  by  voting 
for  the  candidates  of  any  other  party  except  the  Socialist 
party?  No  other  party  except  the  Socialist  party  pro- 
poses to  put  men  and  materials  together.  Every  other 
party  except  the  Socialist  party  proposes  that  a  small 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  —  WHAT  ?  177 

class  of  men  shall  continue  to  own  all  of  the  great  indus- 
trial machinery,  while  the  rest  shall  continue  to  be 
robbed  as  the  price  of  its  use.  Every  other  party  except 
the  Socialist  party  proposes  that  a  small  body  of  men 
shall  continue  to  graft  off  the  rest  by  wringing  profits 
from  them.  No  party  except  the  Socialist  party  puts  the 
people  above  profits. 

Even  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  his  party  do  not.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  stands  as  firmly  for  the  principle  of  profits  as 
does  Mr.  Morgan.  Mr.  Roosevelt  differs  from  the  most 
besotted  reactionary  only  in  his  hallucination  that  he 
could  appoint  "  strong "  commissions  that  would  suc- 
cessfully regulate  other  people's  property.  ]\Ir.  Roose- 
velt does  not  seem  to  recognize  that,  so  long  as  profits 
are  in  the  capitalist  system,  the  workers  must  not  only  be 
robbed  of  part  of  what  they  produce,  but  that  they  must 
be  periodically  denied  even  the  right  to  work  at  any  wage. 
Nor  does  he  seem  to  realize  that,  if  he  were  to  reduce 
the  profits  to  the  point  where  there  was  not  much  rob- 
bery, the  capitalists  would  no  longer  have  any  incentive 
for  remaining  in  business. 

With  profits  eliminated,  or  cut  to  the  vanishing  point, 
the  capitalist  system  cannot  stand. 

With  profits  not  eliminated  or  cut  near  the  vanishing 
point,  the  people  cannot  stand. 

Therefore,  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  trying  to  bring  about  the 
impossible.  He  is  trying  to  prevent  the  people  from  be- 
ing robbed  without  destroying  the  power  of  the  capitalist 
to  live  by  robbery.  Mr.  Roosevelt  probably  would  like 
to  decrease,  somewhat,  the  extent  to  which  cai)italists 
practice  robbery.  But  he  is  not  willing  to  take  away 
from  them  the  power  to  njb. 

If  Mr.  Roosevelt  were  chasing  burglars  instead  of  the 
Presidency,  we  should  first  laugh  at  him  and  then  put  a 


178        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

new  man  on  the  force  in  his  place.  Imagine  a  police- 
man trying  to  prevent  burglary  by  "  regulating "  the 
burglars,  saying  to  them  in  a  hissing  voice:  "Now, 
gentlemen,  this  burglary  must  stop.  We  really  can  have 
no  more  of  it.  None  of  you  must  carry  a  *  jimmy  '  more 
than  four  feet  long.  Any  burglar  caught  with  more 
than  twenty  skeleton  keys  will  be  sent  to  prison." 

Yet  that  is  practically  what  Mr.  Roosevelt  says  to  the 
capitalists.  The  "jimmy"  of  the  capitalist  is  his  own- 
ership of  the  tools  with  which  his  employees  work,  but 
Mr.  Roosevelt  makes  no  move  to  take  this  instrument 
from  the  men  who  are  despoiling  the  workers.  All  that 
Mr.  Roosevelt  purposes  to  do  is  to  place  a  limit  upon  the 
amount  that  the  capitalist  can  legally  abstract.  And  he 
depends  upon  "  strong  "  commissions  to  keep  the  fero- 
cious capitalist  in  order. 

We  Socialists  have  no  faith  in  such  measures.  We 
frankly  predict  their  failure,  precisely  as  twenty  years 
ago  we  predicted  the  failure  of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust 
Law.  We  were  then  known  to  so  few  of  our  own 
people  that  not  man}^  persons  had  the  pleasure  of  calling 
us  fools.  Now,  nobody  wants  to  call  us  fools  for  that. 
We  are  now  fools  because  we  do  not  believe  in  Wilson 
or  in  Roosevelt. 

We  are  not  content  to  await  the  verdict  of  time,  but  we 
await  it  with  confidence.  We  dislike  to  waste  twenty- 
five  more  years  in  chasing  up  this  Roosevelt  blind  alley, 
but  if  you  should  determine  to  make  the  trip  —  which  we 
hope  you  will  not  —  we  shall  still  be  on  the  main  track 
when  you  come  back. 

If  somebody  else  had  the  key  to  your  house  and  would 
not  let  you  in  unless  you  paid  him  his  price,  you  would 
not  value  highly  the  services  of  a  policeman  who  should 
tell  you  that  the  way  to  deal  with  the  gentleman  was  to 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM— WHAT?  179 

"  regulate  "  him.  If  the  gentlemen  had  locked  you  out 
upon  an  average  of  four  times  a  week,  you  would  feel 
even  less  kindly  disposed  toward  such  a  policeman. 

We  Socialists  feel  that  the  capitalist  class  has  keys  that 
belong  to  the  American  people,  and  that  it  has  used  and  is 
using  those  keys  to  prevent  the  people  from  using  their 
own,  except  upon  the  payment  of  tribute. 

We  feel  that  the  capitalist  class  holds  the  keys  to  our 
workshops  and  will  not  let  us  enter  except  upon  such 
tribute  terms  as  they  can  wring  from  us. 

We  feel  that  the  capitalist  class  has  the  keys  to  our  coal 
fields  and  will  not  let  us  be  warm  in  winter  except  upon 
the  payment  of  money  that  should  go,  perhaps,  for  food 
or  clothing. 

We  feel  that  the  capitalist  class  has  the  keys  of  our 
national  pantry  and  compels  those  to  go  hungry  whom  it 
has  denied  the  right  to  work. 

In  short,  we  feel  that  the  capitalists  have  the  keys  of 
our  happiness  —  so  far  as  happiness  depends  upon  ma- 
terial things  —  and  are  compelling  us  to  subsist  upon  un- 
certainty and  fear,  when  security  and  contentment  lie 
just  at  our  elbows,  awaiting  the  turn  of  the  keys. 

We  Socialists  are  ready  to  stand  behind  any  party  that 
will  pledge  itself  to  return  these  keys  to  the  people,  re- 
serving only  the  right  to  be  convinced  that  the  pledge  is 
made  in  good  faith  and  will  be  kept. 

If  Mr.  Roosevelt  will  promise  to  use  his  best  efforts  to 
take  from  the  capitalists  the  private  ownership  of  in- 
dustry, we  Socialists  shall  believe  he  means  business  and 
shall  begin  to  respect  him. 

If  Mr.  Wilson  will  make  a  similar  promise,  we  shall 
feel  the  same  toward  him. 

But  if  Mr.  Roosevelt  or  Mr.  Wilson  should  make 
such  a  promise,  they  would  have  absolutely  no  capitalist 


iSo        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

suppcirt.  Mr.  Perkins  would  not  be  with  Mr.  Roosevelt. 
Mr.  Ryan  would  not  be  with  Mr.  Wilson.  So  far  as 
great  capitalists  are  concerned,  Armageddon  and  Sea 
Girt  would  look  a  good  deal  like  a  baseball  park  two 
weeks  after  the  close  of  the  season. 

All  the  world  over,  the  Socialist  party  is  the  only  po- 
litical organization  that  frankly  stands  up  to  the  guns  and 
demands  the  keys.  It  is  the  only  party  that  minces  no 
words  and  looks  for  no  favors  from  the  rich.  The  So- 
cialist party  is  avowedly  and  earnestly  committed  to  the 
task  of  compelling  the  capitalist  class  to  surrender  the 
power  with  which  it  robs.  And,  anyone  who  believes 
that  power  does  not  lie  in  the  private  ownership  of  in- 
dustrial machinery  need  only  try  to  become  rich  without 
owning  any  such  machinery  or  gambling  in  its  products. 
We  Socialists  are  willing  to  stake  our  lives  on  the  state- 
ment that  if  you  will  transfer  the  ownership  of  industry 
from  the  capitalist  class  to  the  people,  those  who  now 
constitute  the  capitalist  class  will  never  get  another  dollar 
that  they  do  not  work  for  or  steal  in  common  burglar  or 
pickpocket  fashion.  If  we  are  in  error  about  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  private  ownership  of  industry,  the  transfer 
of  such  ownership  to  the  people  would  not  hurt  the  cap- 
italist class.  But  the  capitalist  class  evidently  does  not 
believe  the  Socialists  are  wrong  in  holding  this  belief, 
because  the  capitalists  are  fighting  us  tooth  and  nail. 

Nothing  is  the  matter  with  this  world.  Whatever  \& 
the  matter  is  with  you.  You  can  begin  to  get  results 
now  if  you  will  begin  to  vote  right  now.  The  election  of 
Victor  L.  Berger  to  Congress  in  19 lo  threw  more  of  the 
fear  of  God  into  the  capitalist  class  of  this  country  than 
any  other  event  that  has  happened  in  a  generation.  If 
fifty  Socialists  were  in  Congress,  the  old  parties  would 
outdo  each  other  in  offering  concessions  to  the  people. 


IF  NOT  SOCIALISM  — WHAT?  i8i 

As  an  illustration  of  what  fifty  Socialist  Congressmen 
could  do  I  will  relate  an  incident  that  took  place  in  Wash- 
ington in  the  winter  of  191 2. 

Berger,  by  playing  shrewd  politics,  had  brought  about 
a  congressional  investigation  of  the  Lawrence  woolen 
mill  strike.  He  had  brought  to  Washington  a  carload  of 
little  tots  from  the  mills  —  boys  and  girls  —  apd  they 
had  spent  the  day  telling  a  committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  their  wrongs.  The  stories  were  heart- 
breaking. Here  was  a  stunted  little  boy  who  declared 
he  worked  in  a  temperature  of  140  degrees  for  $5  a  week. 
A  young  girl  —  the  daughter  of  a  mill-worker  —  told  of 
an  insult  offered  to  her  by  a  soldier  and  of  her  own  arrest 
when  she  struck  him.  A  skilled  weaver  described  the 
difficulty  of  keeping  life  in  his  four  children  on  a  diet  of 
bread  and  molasses.  Every  story  was  different  in  detail, 
but  all  were  alike  in  the  depths  of  poverty  that  they 
revealed.  The  testimony  bore  heavily  upon  those  who 
listened,  and  when  the  session  was  suspended  for  the  day 
the  members  of  Congress  hastened  quickly  from  the 
room. 

As  Berger  walked  rapidly  toward  the  door  an  old  man 
stopped  him.  Apparently  he  was  a  business  man,  55  or 
60  years  old.  Certainly  he  was  not  a  workingman.  But 
he  had  heard  the  day's  testimony  and  he  could  not  remain 
silent. 

*'  Mr.  Berger,"  he  said,  "  I  have  always  been  against 
you  and  all  Socialists.  I  was  sorry  when  I  hoard  you 
had  been  elected  to  Congress.  But  if  you  brought  about 
this  investigation,  as  I  am  informed  you  did,  1  want  to 
say  to  you  that  if  you  were  never  to  do  another  thing 
during  your  term,  your  election  would  have  been  more 
than  justified.  I  hope  your  people  will  keep  you  in  Con- 
gress as  long  as  you  live." 


i82        JHE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

How  many  more  men  would  change  their  minds  if 
there  were  fifty  Sociahsts  in  Congress?  How  many 
capitalists  would  change  their  minds  as  to  how  far  they 
could  safely  go  in  robbing  the  people? 

Three  millions  of  votes  for  the  Socialist  ticket  would 
by  no  means  elect  a  Socialist  president.  But  they  would 
squeeze  out  more  justice  from  the  capitalist  parties  than 
the  people  have  had  since  this  government  began. 

Moreover,  if  you  want  the  world  during  your  own  life- 
time you  will  have  to  take  it  during  your  own  lifetime. 
It  will  not  do  you  much  good  to  let  your  grandchildren 
take  it  during  their  lifetime. 


APPENDIX. 
NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  PLATFORM 

(Adopted  at  Indianapolis,  May,  1912) 

THE  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States  declares  that  the 
capitahst  system  has  outgrown  its  historical  function,  and  has 
become  utterly  incapable  of  meeting  the  problems  now  con- 
fronting society.  We  denounce  this  outgrown  system  as  incompe- 
tent and  corrupt  and  the  source  of  unspeakable  misery  and  suffer- 
ing to  the  whole  working  class. 

Under  this  system  the  industrial  equipment  of  the  nation  has 
passed  into  the  absolute  control  of  a  plutocracy  which  exacts  an  an- 
nual tribute  of  millions  of  dollars  from  the  producers.  Unafraid 
of  any  organized  resistance,  it  stretches  out  its  greedy  hands  over 
the  still  undeveloped  resources  of  the  nation  —  the  land,  the  mines, 
the  forests  and  the  water-powers  of  every  State  in  the  Union. 

In  spite  of  the  multiplication  of  labor-saving  machines  and  im- 
proved methods  in  industry  which  cheapen  the  cost  of  production, 
the  share  of  the  producers  grows  ever  less,  and  the  prices  of  all  the 
necessities  of  life  steadily  increase.  The  boasted  prosperity  of  this 
nation  is  for  the  owning  class  alone.  To  the  rest  it  means  only 
greater  hardship  and  misery.  The  high  cost  of  living  is  felt  in 
every  home.  Millions  of  wage-workers  have  seen  the  purchasing 
power  of  their  wages  decrease  until  life  has  become  a  desperate 
battle  for  mere  existence. 

Multitudes  of  unemployed  walk  the  streets  of  our  cities  or  trudge 
from  State  to  State  awaiting  the  will  of  the  masters  to  move  the 
wheels  of  industry. 

The  farmers  in  every  State  are  plundered  by  the  increasing  prices 
exacted  for  tools  and  machinery  and  by  extortionate  rents,  freight 
rates  and  storage  charges. 

Capitalist  concentration  is  mercilessly  crushing  the  class  of  small 
business  men  and  driving  its  nicnihers  into  the  ranks  of  propertiless 
wage  workers.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  of  Amer- 
ica are  being  forced  under  a  yoke  of  bondage  by  this  soulless  in- 
dustrial despotism. 

It  is  this  capitalist  system  that  is  responsible  for  the  increasing 
burden  of  armaments,  the  poverty,  slums,  child  labor,  most  of  the 
insanity,  crime  and  prostitution,  and  much  of  the  disease  that  afflicts 
mankind. 

183 


i84        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

Under  this  system  the  working  class  is  exposed  to  poisonous  con- 
ditions, to  frightful  and  needless  perils  to  life  and  limb,  is  walled 
around  with  court  decisions,  injunctions  and  unjust  laws,  and  is 
preyed  upon  incessantly  for  the  benefit  of  the  controlling  oligarchy 
of  wealth.  Under  it  also,  the  chihlren  of  the  working  class  are 
doomed  to  ignorance,  drudging  toil  and  darkened  lives. 

In  the  face  of  these  evils,  so  manifest  tliat  all  thoughtful  observers 
are  appalled  at  them,  the  legislative  representatives  of  the  Republi- 
can. Democratic,  and  all  reform  parties  remain  the  faithful  servants 
of  the  oppressors.  Measures  designed  to  secure  to  the  wage  earners 
of  this  nation  as  humane  and  just  treatment  as  is  already  enjoyed 
by  the  wage  earners  of  all  other  civilized  nations  have  been  smoth- 
ered in  committee  without  debate,  and  laws  ostensibly  designed  to 
bring  relief  to  the  farmers  and  general  consumers  are  juggled  and 
transformed  into  instruments  for  the  exaction  of  further  tribute. 
The  growing  unrest  under  oppression  has  driven  these  two  old 
parties  to  the  enactment  of  a  variety  of  regulative  measures,  none 
of  which  has  limited  in  any  appreciable  degree  the  power  of  the 
plutocracy,  and  some  of  which  have  been  perverted  into  means  for 
increasing  that  power.  Anti-trust  laws,  railroad  restrictions  and 
regulations,  with  the  prosecutions,  indictments  and  investigations 
based  upon  such  legislation,  have  proved  to  be  utterly  futile  and 
ridiculous  Nor  has  this  plutocracy  been  seriously  restrained  or 
even  threatened  by  any  Republican  or  Democratic  executive.  It  has 
continued  to  grow  in  power  and  insolence  alike  under  the  adminis- 
trations of  Cleveland,  McKinley,   Roosevelt  and  Taft. 

In  addition  to  this  legislative  juggling  and  this  executive  con- 
nivance, the  courts  of  America  have  sanctioned  and  strengthened  the 
hold  of  this  plutocracy  as  the  Dred  Scott  and  other  decisions 
strengthened  the  slave  power  before  the  Civil  War. 

We  declare,  therefore,  that  the  longer  sufferance  of  these  condi- 
tions is  impossible,  and  we  purpose  to  end  them  all.  We  declare 
them  to  be  the  product  of  the  present  system  in  which  industry  is 
carried  on  for  private  greed,  instead  of  for  the  welfare  of  society., 
We  declare,  furthermore,  that  for  these  evils  there  will  be  and  can 
be  no  remedy  and  no  substantial  relief  except  through  Socialism, 
under  which  industry  will  be  carried  on  for  the  common  good  and 
every  worker  receive  the  full  social  value  of  the  wealth  he  creates. 

Society  is  divided  into  warring  groups  and  classes,  based  upon 
material  interests.  Fundamentally,  this  struggle  is  a  conflict  be- 
tween the  two  main  classes,  one  of  which,  the  capitalist  class,  owns 
the  means  of  production,  and  the  other,  the  working  class,  must  use 
these  means  of  production  on  terms  dictated  by  the  owners. 

The  capitalist  class,  though  few  in  numbers,  absolutely  controls 
the  Government — legislative,  executive  and  judicial.    This  class  owns 


APPENDIX  185 

the  machinery  of  gathering  and  disseminating  news  through  its  or- 
ganized press.  It  subsidizes  seats  of  learning  —  the  colleges  and 
schools  —  and  even  religious  and  moral  agencies.  It  has  also  the 
added  prestige  which  established  customs  give  to  any  order  of  so- 
ciety, right  or  wrong. 

The  working  class,  which  includes  all  those  who  are  forced  to 
work  for  a  living,  whether  by  hand  or  by  brain,  in  shop,  mine  or  on 
the  soil,  vastly  outnumbers  the  capitalist  class.  Lacking  effective 
organization  and  class  solidarity,  this  class  is  unable  to  enforce  its 
•will.  Given  such  class  solidarity  and  effective  organization,  the 
workers  will  have  the  power  to  make  all  laws  and  control  all  indus- 
try in  their  own  interest. 

All  political  parties  are  the  expression  of  economic  class  interests. 
All  other  parties  than  the  Socialist  Party  represents  one  or  another 
group  of  the  ruling  capitalist  class.  Their  political  conflicts  reflect 
merely  superficial  rivalries  between  competing  capitalist  groups. 
However  they  result,  these  conflicts  have  no  issue  of  real  value  to 
the  workers.  Whether  the  Democrats  or  Republicans  win  politically, 
it  .is  the  capitalist  class  that  is  victorious  economically. 

The  Socialist  Party  is  the  political  expression  of  the  economic 
interests  of  the  workers.  Its  defeats  have  been  their  defeats,  and 
its  victories  their  victories.  It  is  a  party  founded  on  the  science  and 
laws  of  social  development.  It  proposes  that,  since  all  social  ne- 
cessities to-day  are  socially  produced,  the  means  of  their  production 
shall   be    socially   owned    and    democratically    controlled. 

In  the  face  of  the  economic  and  political  aggressions  of  the  capi- 
talist class  the  only  reliance  left  the  workers  is  that  of  their  eco- 
nomic organizations  and  their  political  power.  By  the  intelligent  and 
class-conscious  use  of  these  they  may  resist  successfully  the  capitalist 
class,  break  the  fetters  of  wage  slavery,  and  fit  themselves  for  the 
future  society,  which  is  to  displace  the  capitalist  system.  The  So- 
cialist Party  appreciates  the  full  significance  of  class  organization  and 
urges  the  wage  earners,  the  working  farmers  and  all  otlicr  useful 
workers  everywhere  to  organize  for  economic  and  p(jlitio.iI  action, 
and  we  pledge  ourselves  to  support  the  toilers  of  the  fields  as  well 
as  those  in  the  shops,  factories  and  mines  of  the  nation  in  lluir 
struggle  for  economic  justice. 

In  the  defeat  or  victory  of  the  working  class  party  in  this  new 
struggle  for  freedom  lies  the  defeat  or  triumph  of  the  common  people 
of  all  economic  groups,  as  well  as  the  f.iilu'-c  or  the  triunipli  of 
popular  government  Thus  the  Socialist  Party  is  the  party  of  the 
present  day  rcvnlMtion.  which  marks  the  transition  from  economic 
individualism  to  Socialism,  from  wage  slavery  to  free  co-operation, 
from  capitalist  oligarchy  to  industrial  democracy. 

As   measures   calculated   to   strengthen  the   working  class   in   its 


i86        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

fight  for  the  realization  of  its  ultimate  aim,  the  Co-operative  Com- 
nronweaitii,  and  to  increase  the  power  of  resistance  against  capitalist 
oppression,  we  advocate  and  pledge  ourselves  and  our  elected  of- 
licers  to  the  foUowmg  program: 

Collective  Ownership 

I.  The  collective  ownership  and  democratic  management  of  rail- 
roads, wire  and  wireless  tclegraplis  and  telephones,  express  services, 
steamboat   lines   and  all   other   social   means   of   transportation   and 

1  communication  and  of  all   large  scale  industries. 

'  2.  The  immediate  acquirement  by  the  municipalities,  the  States 
or  the  federal  government  of  all  grain  elevators,  stock  yards,  storage 
warehouses  and  other  distributing  agencies,  in  order  to  reduce  the 
present  extortionate  cost  of  living, 

3.  The  extension  of  the  public  domain  to  include  mines,  quarries, 
oil  wells,  forests  and  water  power. 

4.  The  further  conservation  and  development  of  natural  resources 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  all  the  people : 

(o)     By  scientific  forestation  and  timber  protection. 
(6)     By  the  reclamation  of  arid  and  swamp  tracts. 

(c)  By  the  storage  of  flood  waters  and  the  utilization  of  water 
power. 

(d)  By  the  stoppage  of  the  present  extravagant  waste  of  the 
soil  and  of  the  products  of  mines  and  oil  wells. 

(e)  By  the  development  of  highway  and  waterway  systems. 

5.  The  collective  ownership  of  land  wherever  practicable,  and,  in 
cases  where  such  ownership  is  impracticable,  the  appropriation  by 
taxation  of  the  annual  rental  value  of  all  land  held  for  speculation. 

6.  The  collective  ownership  and  democratic  management  of  the 
banking  and  currency  system. 

Unemployment 

The  immediate  government  relief  of  the  unemployed  by  the  ex- 
tension of  all  useful  public  works.  All  persons  employed  on  such 
works  to  be  engaged  directly  by  the  government  under  a  workday 
of  not  more  than  eight  hours  and  not  less  than  the  prevailing  union 
wages.  The  government  also  to  establish  employment  bureaus;  to 
lend  money  to  States  and  municipalities  witliout  interest  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  on  public  works,  and  to  take  such  other  meas- 
ures within  its  power  as  will  lessen  the  widespread  misery  of  the 
workers  caused  by  the  misrule  of  the  capitalist  class. 

Industrial  Demands 

The  conservation  of  human  resources,  particularly  of  the  lives  and 
well-being  of  the  workers  and  their  families: 


APPENDIX  187 

1.  By  shortening  the  workday  in  keeping  with  the  increased  pro- 
ductiveness of  machinery. 

2.  By  securing  to  every  worker  a  rest  period  of  not  less  than  a 
day  and  a  half  in  each  week. 

3.  By  securing  a  more  effective  inspection  of  workshops,  facto- 
ries and  mines. 

4.  By  forbidding  tlie  employment  of  children  under  16  years  of 
age. 

I     5.     By  the  co-operative  organization  of  industries  in  federal  peni- 
rtentiaries  and  workshops  for  the  benefit  of  convicts  and  their  de- 
pendents. 

6.  By  forbidding  the  interstate  transportation  of  the  products  of 
child-labor,  of  convict  labor  and  of  all  uninspected  factories  and 
mines. 

7.  By  abolishing  the  profit  system  in  government  work,  and  sub- 
stituting either  the  direct  hire  of  labor  or  the  awarding  of  contracts 
to  co-operative  groups  of  workers. 

8.  By  establishing  minimum  wage  scales. 

9.  By  abolishing  official  charity  and  substituting  a  non-contribu- 
tory system  of  old  age  pensions,  a  general  system  of  insurance  by 
the  State  of  all  its  members  against  unemployment  and  invalidism 
and  a  system  of  compulsory  insurance  by  employers  of  their  work- 
ers, without  cost  to  the  latter,  against  industrial  disease,  accidents 
and  death. 

Political  Demands 

The  ab.solute  freedom  of  press,  speech  and  assemblage. 

The  adoption  of  a  gradual  income  tax,  the  increase  of  the  rates  of 
the  present  corporation  tax  and  the  extension  of  inheritance  taxes, 
graduated  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  estate  and  to  nearness 
of  kin  —  the  proceeds  of  these  taxes  to  be  employed  in  the  socializa- 
tion of  industry. 

The  abolition  of  the  monopoly  ownership  of  patents  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  collective  ownership,  with  direct  rewards  to  inventors 
by  premiums  or  royalties. 

Unrestricted  and  equal  suffrage  for  men  and  women. 

The  adoption  of  the  initiative,  referendum  and  recall  and  of  pro- 
portional representation,  nationally  as  well  as  locally. 

The  abolition  of  the  Senate  and  the  veto  power  of  the  President. 

The  election  of  the  President  and  the  Vice  President  by  direct 
vote  of  the  people. 

The  abolition  of  tlie  power  usuri)fd  by  the  .Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  legislation 
enacted  by  Congress.  National  laws  to  be  repealed  only  by  act  of 
Congress  or  by  the  voters  in  a  majority  of  the  States. 


1 88        THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  SOCIALISM 

TIic  pfrantinp  of  the  right  of  suffiape  in  the  District  of  CohiiTf- 
bia  with  representation  in  Congress  and  a  democratic  form  of  mu- 
nicipal government  for  purely  local  affairs. 

The  extension  of  democratic  government  to  all  United  States  ter- 
'  ritory. 

The  enactment  of  further  measures  for  general  education  and  par- 
ticularly for  vocational  education  in  useful  pursuits.  The  Bureau 
of  Education  to  be  made  a  department. 

The  enactment  of  further  measures  for  the  conservation  of  health. 
The  creation  of  an  independent  Bureau  of  Health  with  such  re- 
strictions as  will  secure  full  libertj'  for  all  schools  of  practice. 

The  separation  of  the  present  Bureau  of  Labor  from  the  Depart- 
ment of  Commerce  and  Labor  and  its  elevation  to  the  rank  of  a  de- 
partment. 

Abolition  of  the  federal  district  courts  and  the  United  States  Cir- 
cuit Courts  of  Appeals.  State  courts  to  have  jurisdiction  in  all 
cases  arising  between  citizens  of  the  several  States  and  foreign  cor- 
porations.    The  election  of  all  judges  for  short  terms. 

The  immediate  curbing  of  the  power  of  the  courts  to  issue  injunc- 
tions. 

The  free  administration  of  justice. 

The  calling  of  a  convention  for  the  revision  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Such  measures  of  relief  as  we  may  be  able  to  force  from  capitalism 
are  but  a  preparation  of  the  workers  to  seize  the  whole  powers  of 
government  in  order  that  they  may  thereby  lay  hold  of  the  whole 
system  of  socialized  industry  and  thus  come  to  their  rightful  inherit- 
ance. 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


D£U  9 


\93l 


*  w 


M 


6  ^341 
UN  1  5  1950 


UWiRL      MAR  1419^ 


REC 
RENEWAL  „.r. 
LD  URL        jVIAR 


DlD-URl 

191! 


^Jt^^l 


»•  MAY  20  19B1 


Form  L-9-15m-7,'32 


^OIR 


JUN  271985 


/u 


u 

■% 

»». 
•■>« 
••111 

IIIM 


AA    000  649  068 


CILITY 


llfii 

J I  ill 


